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

[joe40001]

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.

I'm not upset by the name, it just reminded me that I was thinking of this movie more as "Abrams Trek" than "Star Trek"

Anyway later on I got around to articulating my point better, and the last few posts in this topic have also done a very good job saying pretty much what I was thinking.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Yeah well that doesn't mean I have to agree. Anyway, I don't think people have been rude to you around here. It's all good fun, you know.

 

[joe40001]

Yeah well that doesn't mean I have to agree. Anyway, I don't think people have been rude to you around here. It's all good fun, you know.

No they really weren't too rude. And I absolutely agree that you can disagree.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^Give it time. It seems most of our resident "If you don't LOVE Abrams with all your heart you're a basement dwelling virgin" types seem to be off-line at the moment.

 

[Gepard]

^Give it time. It seems most of our resident "If you don't LOVE Abrams with all your heart you're a basement dwelling virgin" types seem to be off-line at the moment.

Darkwing, you don't love Abrams with all your heart and are a base...aw, shoot, I've never gotten a warning before. Don't want to start now.

 

[john titor]

Hey OP, I'm not a big fan of it either. Its not a bad movie, in fact its quite good, but I did think it was very dumbed down. To summarize it was booom, sspppprssssh, kkkrrrrsshssh and then theres more explosions and its like prrrrrssshhh, kaplow, krrrssssshhhh.

 

[curson]

I get the point of view of joe40001, but frankly while understanding it I don't share it at all.

I don't usually like prequels and I think that there's no point of appealing for a franchise to start digging its own past, it's almost always a matter of money (ala Star Wars). Nevertheless to say the result is not a nice one, most of the time.

But.
This is not a prequel. Characters are those from TOS, but they are for about 15 minutes into the movie, probably less. It appeared clear from the very beginning that noone was trying to give us neither a prequel nor a different point of view on something that had already been done. This is not how Abrams would like you to see Star Trek (the Universe), but how he saw it.

It's a different Universe, a different timeline, with characters that started with same names (and thus known histories) but that will now (eventually, and I frankly hope so) develop in a completly different way. He opened a new door, but what is important, he didn't close the old one.
That "original" universe is still there for us to cheris and eventually to play with. It was in the hands and minds of the fans even before this movie, with no "official" product being produced, and it is still exactly there.

You don't have to think in exclusions: liking Abram's Star Trek doesn't mean forgetting what has been 'till now, or disliking it, and so on.
My very .02 of course.

I liked the movie enough to be just plain happy about new Star Trek getting finally released, and I'm not going to enjoy my "First Contact" week-end on Virgin1, and Voyager: Night in particular. *yay*

 

[Kelso]

I love what they did.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

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.

Come on, you don't know a tongue-in-cheek joke when you see it?

In the future are we going to have to call the Star Trek we knew "Star Trek:TOU" (The Original Universe)?

I'd prefer the term "Old Trek".

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.

Come on, it's simple as heck. This is "Star Trek", and the first universe is "Star Trek". They're two different Star Trek's, but they're still Star Trek. How can that be hard to understand? More importantly, how hard can it be to love both? It's not as if Star Trek precludes you from enjoying/loving other franchises in exactly the same way; the same goes with the movie and the earlier universe.

 

[curson]

Come on, it's simple as heck. This is "Star Trek", and the first universe is "Star Trek". They're two different Star Trek's, but they're still Star Trek. How can that be hard to understand?

The real question is: how could this be bad?

 

[MikeS]

People are talking about "two Star Trek's", but In my opinion there have alway's been more than just two. We had Roddenberry's vision, which Fontana then carried on, this evolved into Harve Bennet's vision, and eventually to Berman's vision. Abrams is merely the latest in a long line "tweaking" the vision.

It should be seen as a good thing. Star Trek is now a classic in the way Holmes or Shakespeare are - they continue to be portrayed in different ways, relevant to the time they're re-released, whilst still holding true to their core values. Trekkie's have been lucky enough that Abram's didn't reject the "old" completely, offering a timetravel explanation as to why this new vision is different.

 

[RAMA]

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.

ST looks to make tons of cash, no, that doesn't make it a good movie, but critical reaction is also unprecedented. It is in fact, a good movie.

RAMA

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

People are talking about "two Star Trek's", but In my opinion there have alway's been more than just two. We had Roddenberry's vision, which Fontana then carried on, this evolved into Harve Bennet's vision, and eventually to Berman's vision. Abrams is merely the latest in a long line "tweaking" the vision.

You know, that's a very good point!

Realistically, TOS is different from TNG, which is different from DS9/VOY, which is different from ENT, which is different from this movie.

So there are even more Star Trek's! Good, good. That means there's something for everyone.

 

[bismarck_1892]

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?

Oh man, there's not too many of us detractors with that opinion around for now. So keep it down, its dangerous. Perhaps later when the furror has died down.

I'm so with you. It is a complete change. I was going to take all the changes except the complete destuction of Vulcan part! Don't see why that was necessary, except to say ... "I'm running the show, and this is a new Star Trek. My Star Trek."

I think we should separate and call it NuTrek, or Abram'sTrek. I personally like NuTrek.

 

[KiraDax]

I was going to take all the changes except the complete destuction of Vulcan part! Don't see why that was necessary, except to say ... "I'm running the show, and this is a new Star Trek. My Star Trek."

I think we should separate and call it NuTrek, or Abram'sTrek. I personally like NuTrek.

It was necessary because it clearly put out to the audience the fact that no, this isn't your grandma's Trek, and no, we aren't afraid to make people cry and tackle big issues, not just skirt around them or flip a reset switch. It bothered me, but I understand why it was done, so I can approve.

And I really don't think we need to call this 'new' Trek. That piles all the previous incarnations together and implies that they are 'alike' and this is 'different' and that just isn't true. Every incarnation has been unique. And they are ALL Trek.

Calling it 'Abram's Trek' would be silly too...we never said 'Braga's Trek' or 'Moore's Trek'.

I think calling this 'Star Trek' works. If we really need to distinguish, call TOS 'The Original Series'. That says it all.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

I think we should separate and call it NuTrek, or Abram'sTrek. I personally like NuTrek.

I vote in favor to rename all old Star Trek to LovedButOldTrek, and the new one Star Trek. Who's with me?

 

[b1bmsgt]

Didn't we hear all this stuff when Battlestar Galactica started back in 2003? Look where that went...

 

[bismarck_1892]

I was going to take all the changes except the complete destuction of Vulcan part! Don't see why that was necessary, except to say ... "I'm running the show, and this is a new Star Trek. My Star Trek."

I think we should separate and call it NuTrek, or Abram'sTrek. I personally like NuTrek.

It was necessary because it clearly put out to the audience the fact that no, this isn't your grandma's Trek, and no, we aren't afraid to make people cry and tackle big issues, not just skirt around them or flip a reset switch. It bothered me, but I understand why it was done, so I can approve.

I'm sorry, I know its been said, but I have to take issue with that. Saying that this movie has tackled big issues doesn't make it so. Trek did so, nuTrek has not. And yes, that is exactly why Vulcan was destroyed, to send a message.

 

[iguana_tonante]

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, exactly like when TNG got on air people started calling the old series, which was the only Star Trek until then, TOS (The Original Series). Some people went apeshit, but in the end everything went well.

 

[ITL]

I shall call all previous Trek "Archibald" and all new Trek "Bartholomew". The alphabetical system ensures that there can be no misunderstandings.

The two combined I will call "Archolomew". As far as 'shippage goes, it's a corker.

Phwooaarr!