It's true what they say: You can't go home again.

[Superman]

I'm sure I'll get nearly flamed for this thread, but whatever.

I know the point of the new Star Trek film isn't really about pleasing me. I'm a life-long fan. I'm thirty-two years old. The demo they're aiming for is people my students' age, in the fifteen to seventeen range, and probably even a little younger.

That said, I'd been hopeful for a long time that Trek XI would be the best of both worlds: faithful to TOS, but also bringing some new material to the table, much as the really good Trek novels have done.

However, having seen the Enterprise and read some truly spoileriffic details, I'm now convinced this isn't the Star Trek I loved, even with Nimoy's presence and "blessing."

Spoilers from here on out.

*Kirk isn't even in the Academy, but EVERYONE else from TOS is? Please. Absolute bullshit, contradicted by a number of references in TOS. This just doesn't work.

*Pike is the first captain of the Enterprise? Not a big problem, really. But the ENTIRE TOS cast serving aboard the Enterprise under Pike? No Piper? Sulu in command? Fucking Chekov, too? Are you kidding me?

*The thirteen or so years between "The Cage" and TOS gone. Not only that, but it would seem, "The Cage" gone as well. If anything, Abrams could've avoided this by just making the Enterprise...

*...NOT BRAND NEW WHEN KIRK COMES ABOARD!!! Are you serious? Really? The Enterprise was over a decade old when Kirk took command. That's canon, not the supposition of the novels.

*The Enterprise herself. Wow, what a fucking monstrosity. Absolutely horrible. The engineering hull is a disaster, and the nacelles? Really? That's what "folks who are fresh to Trek" came up with? Didn't anyone on Abrams' team consider looking here (Vektor, etc) and elsewhere (Koerner) for inspiration?

Bottom-line, I think the cast looks too young, too pretty, and just too out of place. Add to that a storyline that's flying at warp speed with canon and logic, and THE science fiction starship needlessly and messily "reimagined," and you have this...

...I'm not going see Star Trek XI. Today's reveals were the last straw.

Let the chastisement from the apologists and Trek whores, many of whom only want more product for the sake of having more product, commence.

\S/

 

[JuanBolio]

By May you might just change your mind. We haven't even seen the trailer yet.

 

[SLWalker]

...I'm not going see Star Trek XI. Today's reveals were the last straw.

Let the chastisement from the apologists and Trek whores, many of whom only want more product for the sake of having more product, commence.

\S/

Not from me; I'm right there with you on all your points and several more besides. And hey, if people can't handle that, screw 'em -- nothing says we all have to agree on it.

 

[Superman]

The only thing that could redeem this all in the trailer would be the reveal that Shatner is really in this movie.

That's about it.

\S/

 

[Superman]

...I'm not going see Star Trek XI. Today's reveals were the last straw.

Let the chastisement from the apologists and Trek whores, many of whom only want more product for the sake of having more product, commence.

\S/

Not from me; I'm right there with you on all your points and several more besides. And hey, if people can't handle that, screw 'em -- nothing says we all have to agree on it.

I'm glad to hear I'm not alone, Wats.

What are some of your problems?

\S/

 

[DeafPoet]

If any of that shit matters to you then you're right: you'll probably hate it. More power to you.

I like just about everything I've seen. Then again, I'm not getting bogged down in canon details. Not saying that my way of approaching it is right and yours is wrong. They're just different.

Personally I'll take what looks to be shaping up as a good story over fastidious devotion to forty years of continuity any day.

 

[Ward Fowler]

You'll get no flames from me. I agree with you on every point. The scene descriptions sound awful to me, what with all the wacky humor and the complete mis characterizations. The bridge looks ridiculous and now I find that the Enterprise looks hideous. I was cautiously optimistic about this movie, but no more.

 

[SLWalker]

I'm glad to hear I'm not alone, Wats.

What are some of your problems?

\S/

Oh, I dunno, lack of continuity, or barring that, admitting it's a reboot...

Whatever moron came up with the notion that you'd build a starship on Earth. Which is the engineering equivalent of building a ocean liner on a mountain-top and then trying to figure out how to get it to the ocean...

The casting decisions, wherein JJ proves he's just more hung up on the pretty than the substance...

The bridge. Period.

JJ. Period.

I've got a slew of reasons, but I've ranted about them to friends so many times that I just don't wanna type it all out again. Most of them all coming back to lack of necessity -- really, it's pretty obviously a money-making ploy and not done for love of Star Trek. ;-) I'm just kind of amazed that the logic of that fails to occur to a lot of folks.

 

[Ward Fowler]

If any of that shit matters to you then you're right: you'll probably hate it. More power to you.

I like just about everything I've seen. Then again, I'm not getting bogged down in canon details. Not saying that my way of approaching it is right and yours is wrong. They're just different.

Personally I'll take what looks to be shaping up as a good story over fastidious devotion to forty years of continuity any day.

It's always all or nothing with people like you. A person is either supposed to love everything that's thrown in front of them or they have a "fastidious devotion to forty years of continuity." I'm sorry, but that is complete bullshit. I was expecting big changes and even a bit excited about them. It just so happens that I don't like the changes that were made. There is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean I'm beholden to the past, it just means that my taste differs from yours.

 

[Stag]

If any of that shit matters to you then you're right: you'll probably hate it. More power to you.

I like just about everything I've seen. Then again, I'm not getting bogged down in canon details. Not saying that my way of approaching it is right and yours is wrong. They're just different.

Personally I'll take what looks to be shaping up as a good story over fastidious devotion to forty years of continuity any day.

I agree.

You know I was around between TOS and TMP and when we first got a glimpse of sketches and then saw the pics of the redesigned Ent, all of the fans were excited...no one bitched, complained or gave a damn about canon. WE HAD NEW TREK!!! That is all we thought about - our heroes were back. New stories/adventures and we get to see our characters again. The ship looked cool, sure we missed the original but this was new and better !!!

Well, now our heroes are either dead or too old to realistically play their characters. Yet there are still more Kirk/Spock/McCoy stories to tell - well how do you tell them? New actors, new production visuals, new interpretations of familiar things.

Why do we NEED to hang onto a design aesthetic that is 40 years old? Because it is familiar? So what? Roddenberry only gave a damn about canon when it was convenient for him to use it to win an argument or further a point. As far as he was concerned, there was no Robert April or anything from the animated series.

 

[SLWalker]

It's always all or nothing with people like you. A person is either supposed to love everything that's thrown in front of them or they have a "fastidious devotion to forty years of continuity." I'm sorry, but that is complete bullshit. I was expecting big changes and even a bit excited about them. It just so happens that I don't like the changes that were made. There is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean I'm beholden to the past, it just means that my taste differs from yours.

 

[MOSUGOJI]

It looks like this one is going to be NETFLIX material for me.
No way I'm shelling out bucks to see THAT disaster of an Enterprise. Oh well maybe I'll get the model when it comes out to try and kitbash it into something halfway decent looking.

 

[MattJC]

I agree with you, Superman. I never believed for one second that Abrams would stick to his word and respect canon.
If Abrams did the same thing what Edward James Olmos did when the new BSG came out and told the fans of the original show that they probably shouldn't watch the new, I probably wouldn't be bitching as much as I have been now.

 

[ancient]

I think it's fairly obvious by now that this new movie is going to be an almost completely new thing, with most of the details thrown out and only similar to TOS in the broadest sense.

It remains to be seen if I will be a fan of this new Trek version. I'm going to see the movie to find out.

 

[DeafPoet]

If any of that shit matters to you then you're right: you'll probably hate it. More power to you.

I like just about everything I've seen. Then again, I'm not getting bogged down in canon details. Not saying that my way of approaching it is right and yours is wrong. They're just different.

Personally I'll take what looks to be shaping up as a good story over fastidious devotion to forty years of continuity any day.

It's always all or nothing with people like you. A person is either supposed to love everything that's thrown in front of them or they have a "fastidious devotion to forty years of continuity." I'm sorry, but that is complete bullshit. I was expecting big changes and even a bit excited about them. It just so happens that I don't like the changes that were made. There is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean I'm beholden to the past, it just means that my taste differs from yours.

I think I admitted that tastes differ in that post you just quoted. So no beef there.

As to your other complaints, I was addressing the OP, not you. Not that I don't welcome your response, it's just that he was taking issue with some relatively minor points. Once again, nothing wrong with that. But I'd say it qualifies as fastidious.

 

[Ward Fowler]

I disagree that his points are minor or that he's being fastidious. I agree with what he says. Also, I don't appreciate your reasonable reply, as it makes it too hard to flame you.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I've loved "Star Trek" since 1966.

This all looks and reads okay, so far - some of it better than other bits, but no real problems.

 

[DeafPoet]

I disagree that his points are minor or that he's being fastidious. I agree with what he says. Also, I don't appreciate your reasonable reply, as it makes it too hard to flame you.

Yeah well, always happy to antagonize

 

[Green Shirt]

I think it's fairly obvious by now that this new movie is going to be an almost completely new thing, with most of the details thrown out and only similar to TOS in the broadest sense.

It remains to be seen if I will be a fan of this new Trek version. I'm going to see the movie to find out.

Yes, at this point I'm going to view the film as a "stand-alone" piece and judge it according to that.

 

[Superman]

If any of that shit matters to you then you're right: you'll probably hate it. More power to you.

I like just about everything I've seen. Then again, I'm not getting bogged down in canon details. Not saying that my way of approaching it is right and yours is wrong. They're just different.

Personally I'll take what looks to be shaping up as a good story over fastidious devotion to forty years of continuity any day.

It's always all or nothing with people like you. A person is either supposed to love everything that's thrown in front of them or they have a "fastidious devotion to forty years of continuity." I'm sorry, but that is complete bullshit. I was expecting big changes and even a bit excited about them. It just so happens that I don't like the changes that were made. There is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean I'm beholden to the past, it just means that my taste differs from yours.

Very nicely put. Thanks for summing up the response I had in mind, but in a much nicer way than I'd have been likely to do it.

\S/