It took me such a long time to watch nu-Trek

[BigJake]

I wish they'd cast Benedict Cumberbatch in the role someone who may look nothing like Nimoy but could at least bring a little of the mystery and wonder of Spock back, with just a little darkness. Quinto plays Spock as a passive-aggressive human.

I think it's more a matter of how the role is written and directed than who they cast. Most likely Quinto is playing Spock the way Abrams wanted him to.

The only thing that bothered me about Simon Pegg is that he seems to be playing not Scotty from Star Trek but the over-the-top parody of Scotty featured in every Star Trek parody ever made.

Pegg's Scotty really does seem like a fanboy just getting the biggest kick ever out of Doing Scotty. Which is not without its charm, but...

 

[Hober Mallow]

I think it's more a matter of how the role is written and directed than who they cast. Most likely Quinto is playing Spock the way Abrams wanted him to.

The script and direction are a big part of it for sure. But I'd say as Sherlock Cumberbatch does even passive-aggressive better than Quinto. I'm not sure what it is. There's a vulnerability to Cumberbatch's Sherlock that's just behind a wall of arrogance, and the more arrogant he tries to get, the more that vulnerability shows through.

Pegg's Scotty really does seem like a fanboy just getting the biggest kick ever out of Doing Scotty. Which is not without its charm, but...

Clearly Pegg is having the time of his life in the role. Can't say I blame him, but I'd like a little more serious Scotty. Again, though, you're right that a lot of that over-the-top stuff comes out of the script and direction.

 

[Galileo7]

I totally disagree that it's "more Battlestar Galactica than Trek" - IMO nuBSG is miserable as hell, whereas nuTrek is fun, light and exciting. Other than that, different strokes for different folks. I love the new movies.

Agree, on all thoughts.

 

[mendelin]

JJ Abrams for me, has destroyed Star Trek--

I don't care for the new films, either, but "destroyed Star Trek?" If we can survive TFF, Insurrection, and VOY, and I think we can survive this.

Oh, please, don't start! There is no perfect Star Trek movie (or TV-show), it's simply impossible (many men, many minds).

IMO, Abrams didn't destroy Star Trek, he drew attention to this franchise.

Are there any good alternatives? For example:
- a familiar crew in the old Universe. Only Archer crew would be the real choice, but who cares about Archer?
- a new crew in the old Universe. Please, who would care about captain Nobody?

Instead of new crew in the old Universe we get an familiar crew in the entirely new Universe. Yes, it's difficult to accept the new Universe, if you are an old Trekkie. But this Reboot is a real future of Star Trek. There is a choice: reboot or nothing. What would be your choice?

 

[BigJake]

Are there any good alternatives?

Films with solid, believable stories and characters to go with all the nifty visuals and the great cast would have been a good alternative. Who knows but another creative team might still get there.

Yes, it's difficult to accept the new Universe, if you are an old Trekkie.

Actually there are plenty of old Trekkies who are quite fanatical defenders of NuTrek. That has little to do with it. It's more a question of whether you think Abrams' version bears any real resemblance to the franchise it's rebooting or not. (Reboots can be done that capture the essence of the original while updating it. And I know you're gearing up to stridently claim that Abrams managed this, but obviously there are others who don't think so and you should probably not imagine you are going to just shout them down.)

There is a choice: reboot or nothing.

There is a school of fandom that doesn't care about the quality of the Trek produced as long as there is some. It's a mentality I don't understand but certainly some people have it. There is another school that isn't satisfied with just anything, but wants good entertainment that has some of the virtues that brought them to Trek. The OP, and the poster you're replying to, presumably are of this mindset.

"Shut up and eat your porridge" is never going to be a satisfactory argument to the second school.

(EDIT: Having said that, though, I do think it behooves us to recognize that NuTrek has at least brought some number of fresh eyeballs back to the old shows and movies. Whatever one thinks of the films themselves, that's a positive.)

 

[mendelin]

Films with solid, believable stories and characters to go with all the nifty visuals and the great cast would have been a good alternative. Who knows but another creative team might still get there.

Yes, totally agree. Not only Star Trek, but almost all modern movies suffer from "lazy writing". AbramsTrek looks like a parody, but it's attractive to the young audience (oh, yes, Benedict Cumberbatch is a perfect way to hide stupid mistakes).

(EDIT: Having said that, though, I do think it behooves us to recognize that NuTrek has at least brought some number of fresh eyeballs back to the old shows and movies. Whatever one thinks of the films themselves, that's a positive.)

"Fresh eyeballs" can lead to the future for good Star Trek movies and shows. Big audience => strong ratings => big money => good motivation for CBS or Paramount

 

[Sindatur]

There is another school of Fans, that you neglected to mention, those who like the Abrams movies, because they actually like them and honestly believe they are good and fun and capture the spirit of TOS, (rather than only settling for them because they carry the label of Trek)

 

[BigJake]

There is another school of Fans, that you neglected to mention, those who like the Abrams movies, because they actually like them and honestly believe they are good and fun and capture the spirit of TOS

Naturally.

 

[Amaris]

There is another school of Fans, that you neglected to mention, those who like the Abrams movies, because they actually like them and honestly believe they are good and fun and capture the spirit of TOS, (rather than only settling for them because they carry the label of Trek)

Me.

 

[urbandefault]

There is another school of Fans, that you neglected to mention, those who like the Abrams movies, because they actually like them and honestly believe they are good and fun and capture the spirit of TOS, (rather than only settling for them because they carry the label of Trek)

Me.

+1.

 

[M'Sharak]

There is another school of Fans, that you neglected to mention, those who like the Abrams movies, because they actually like them and honestly believe they are good and fun and capture the spirit of TOS, (rather than only settling for them because they carry the label of Trek)

This "another" school: are they younger Fans or are they Older Fans? I keep hearing that this is an important distinction to make.

 

[Sindatur]

There is another school of Fans, that you neglected to mention, those who like the Abrams movies, because they actually like them and honestly believe they are good and fun and capture the spirit of TOS, (rather than only settling for them because they carry the label of Trek)

This "another" school: are they younger Fans or are they Older Fans? I keep hearing that this is an important distinction to make.

<Giggle>

I grew up with TOS reruns in the 1970s and TAS. DS9 is my favorite of the Series, and although TNG has some great/excellent episodes, a full Marathon through it, has less enjoyment for me than doing the same with Voyager or Enterprise (Though, I remember loving Most of TNG when it originally aired).

Not sure, if you can pigeon hole that into a pattern, but, go for it

 

[Nerys Myk]

There is another school of Fans, that you neglected to mention, those who like the Abrams movies, because they actually like them and honestly believe they are good and fun and capture the spirit of TOS, (rather than only settling for them because they carry the label of Trek)

This "another" school: are they younger Fans or are they Older Fans? I keep hearing that this is an important distinction to make.

<Giggle>

I grew up with TOS reruns in the 1970s and TAS. DS9 is my favorite of the Series, and although TNG has some great/excellent episodes, a full Marathon through it, has less enjoyment for me than doing the same with Voyager or Enterprise (Though, I remember loving Most of TNG when it originally aired).

Not sure, if you can pigeon hole that into a pattern, but, go for it

You're one of them Smörgåsbord type fans, ain't cha?

 

[Sindatur]

This "another" school: are they younger Fans or are they Older Fans? I keep hearing that this is an important distinction to make.

<Giggle>

I grew up with TOS reruns in the 1970s and TAS. DS9 is my favorite of the Series, and although TNG has some great/excellent episodes, a full Marathon through it, has less enjoyment for me than doing the same with Voyager or Enterprise (Though, I remember loving Most of TNG when it originally aired).

Not sure, if you can pigeon hole that into a pattern, but, go for it

You're one of them Smörgåsbord type fans, ain't cha?

Guilty as charged

 

[Hober Mallow]

Yes, it's difficult to accept the new Universe, if you are an old Trekkie. But this Reboot is a real future of Star Trek. There is a choice: reboot or nothing. What would be your choice?

My choice is reboot. I just want a good reboot.

 

[BillJ]

I like the Abrams films though they have issues. It's nice to have Star Trek that is brash and fun again.

 

[Smellmet]

Me too, I'd class myself as a fairly old Trek fan, I turn 40 in a few months and I've been a fan since watching TMP at the cinema in 79 and the reruns of the old show, been a massive fan ever since. I've watched more or less every episode of all the other series and films, and I love the reboot movies, it's the kind of thing I've been craving for the franchise for a number of years, I was getting fed up of cheaply knocked together nonsense like TFF and Insurrection, but I agree, they are not without their problems, mainly in the writing department, and the casting of BC as Khan, but it's not enough to spoil my enjoyment of them.

I really hope they knock it out of the park for ST3.

 

[HIjol]

If there's one truism about Star Trek, it's that not everyone likes all of it (many people may love one "this" but hate "that"). While there are definitely fans who do love every version of Trek, I think there are many more who don't--and that's really to be expected for any long-running franchise that has spinoffs, reboots, etc., IMO.

Personally, though, I've always felt that Star Trek movies ought to be different from Star Trek TV shows. The movies should be big-scale action-adventure flicks that do things that wouldn't or can't be done on TV. As such, I have a lot of fun with the current movies as Star Trek on steroids.

C.E., you summed it up and nailed it in two paragraphs...!!!!

 

[Delta Vega]

JJ Abrams for me, has destroyed Star Trek--

I don't care for the new films, either, but "destroyed Star Trek?" If we can survive TFF, Insurrection, and VOY, and I think we can survive this.

Oh, please, don't start! There is no perfect Star Trek movie (or TV-show), it's simply impossible (many men, many minds).

IMO, Abrams didn't destroy Star Trek, he drew attention to this franchise.

Are there any good alternatives? For example:
- a familiar crew in the old Universe. Only Archer crew would be the real choice, but who cares about Archer?
- a new crew in the old Universe. Please, who would care about captain Nobody?

Instead of new crew in the old Universe we get an familiar crew in the entirely new Universe. Yes, it's difficult to accept the new Universe, if you are an old Trekkie. But this Reboot is a real future of Star Trek. There is a choice: reboot or nothing. What would be your choice?

My choice would have been a reboot for television. Old characters recast in the original timeline, universe or whatever, set a few years after the Five Year Mission, reworked and rethought for the 21st Century viewer.
A sort of Phase II but not the way that TNG turned out.
As an old school fan, I think Abrams has taken way too many liberties with the franchise, but as you rightly say, no Trek film is perfect.
As for Archer on the big screen, why not ?
Enterprise was coming into its own before they canned it.

 

[BillJ]

As for Archer on the big screen, why not ?

Very few people wanted to watch Archer for free. What makes you think they'd spend money to see him?