Should I Be Ashamed as a TOS fan to like the Rebooted Movies?

[Kor]

No. Also, people who thought "Into Darkness" had no deeper social meaning obviously watched a different movie than I did, because it was loaded with stuff about how a nominally good guy becomes obsessed with the enemy and BECOMES the enemy, and tries to start a pre-emptive war, which seems fairly current-events-related to me.

I think nobody noticed this stuff because it's really current events from a decade and a half ago, so they are just used to such themes by now.

Those who are the hardest on it tend to be people who don't like ANY of the 'non-tos' trek (or didn't like it originally, see TNG).

That's funny. Most of the anti-NuTrek arguments I've seen come from people who like TNG and not TOS!

...the colorful, swashbuckling flavor of the original series...

Exactly.

Kor

 

[fireproof78]

No. Also, people who thought "Into Darkness" had no deeper social meaning obviously watched a different movie than I did, because it was loaded with stuff about how a nominally good guy becomes obsessed with the enemy and BECOMES the enemy, and tries to start a pre-emptive war, which seems fairly current-events-related to me.

The fact that they packaged that in action-explosions and a girl in skimpy clothing all seems pretty TOS to me.

My father is an Original Gangsta Trekkie, and he really enjoyed the new movies. So did my mother, who is practically Sci-Fi-Phobic.

Same here. My dad actually does not enjoy TNG and beyond Star Trek, and has never had any interest. The Abrams films, however, interested him a lot. My mom got somewhat interested, despite having no interest in Star Trek.

Also, I always amused by the suggestion that Abrams films were not serious or didn't have some sort of social commentary. I mean, father figures and drone targets and paranoia are all pretty serious issues to take on. It may not be on the nose, but it's there.

 

[JKM]

The discussion on how the Abrams movies compare to the TOS always brings this vid I saw to mind. I never realized until then how well the cast of the nu-trek fills the shoes of those characters, the mannerisms and so forth. Some of Pine's expressions just smack of Shatner's Kirk, but are still his own. I just love that.

 

[BillJ]

I have a pet theory, based solely on anecdotal evidence, that it's actually the TNG generation that is more likely to have issues with the new movies, as opposed to us old-school TOS fans . . ..

I gotta be honest. After seeing the first Abrams movie, I lost almost all interest in the spinoffs.

Star Trek was fun again.

 

[martok2112]

I was lashed back under my rock after encountering a fundamentalist sect of Star Trek fans who preached hellfire and damnation that I dared place my TOS Enterprise miniature and my Abrams era Enterprise miniature side by side, and that I spoke love of both eras. I was accused of being a heretic for speaking forth that Trek was fun once more. Stones were cast upon me for daring to believe that the original Trek universe was still intact, when the fundamentalist mobs saw nothing but the destruction of their beloved timeline at the hands of the Anti-Rod, JJ Abrams. I bear the scars, welts, burns, bruises, sores, and boils for my sins, and beg the forgiveness of the righteous for ever professing my love for both TOS and Abrams era Trek, and everything in between. I have seen 'de light. Praise be to the Great Bird, I have been redeemed through penitence and punishment.


Nah.....I'm just kiddin'.

Loved Trek ever since I was four years old. From TOS to TAS to the movies TNG to the movies to DS9 to VOY to ENT to JJ Abrams. You should never feel ashamed for liking more than one iteration of any fictional property.

 

[Mudd]

Meh...I'm sure not.

I do get a little bored with kids who got into this stuff in the 80s telling me that "real long-time fans" detest nuTrek.

 

[JTShanks]

Fans that tell other potential fans are not true fans because they simply got into the series from the NuTrek films or just enjoy and like, perhaps love the NuTrek films are not ones to judge.

 

[StarTrek1701]

Star Trek is Star Trek.
What's there to be ashamed about?
All this Prime/Abrams bullcrap is unnecessary IMHO!

 

[maneth]

No need to feel ashamed at all. You like what you like. ST09 was a lot of fun to watch, but I'll frankly admit that there are aspects of STID that I didn't enjoy at all.

 

[Shalashaska]

Yes.

You're not allowed to have your own opinion.

ᴵˢ ᵗʰᶦˢ ᵗʰʳᵉᵃᵈ ʳᵉᵃᶫᶫʸ ᶰᵉᶜᵉˢˢᵃʳʸ﹖

 

[Jonno1971]

Personally i see the Abrams films doing for Star Trek exactly the same as Russell T Davies did for Doctor Who.

For a lot of ordinary viewers Star Trek became very beige during the late 90s and early 00s. I think there was probably just too much Trek on TV and it all became very earnest.

The new films have what the original series had back in 66. A young good looking cast with lots of action and adventure and really well written, well acted characters.

To me these films have a lot of heart which is what Star Trek is all about i feel.

 

[Franklin]

It seems like those two things aren't compatible. Yes, TOS is my favorite series.

The concept that I liked about the new ones is that they were entertaining and thrilling. Sure, they weren't philosophical, but that is really hard to do at the same time. Movies are supposed to be thrilling. The only really thrilling movie from the original universe is Star Trek: First Contact.

Your premise is false. TOS wasn't philosophical. It didn't set out to teach us anything. Really. That's a myth. As I've said before, it was no more "philosophical" than Gunsmoke. TOS is just a bunch of good stories (and a few stinkers) that tended to address universal themes from the sci-fi setting, not westerns, hospitals, or police stations.

And as others have posted, Abrams' movies dealt with real issues, and in some ways, more forthrightly and maturely than TOS did sometimes. (I'm looking at you, Bele and Lokai.)

To the extent they are compatible, it's because the characters survived more or less intact after fifty years. They still are interesting, they still entertain, and we still care about them. To be fair, they're not compatible to the extent that a 1960s TV series will never stand up in production values and content to a big screen movie in the 21st century. But it's all about the characters, that's the glue. That's the common denominator.

 

[RandyS]

Same here.

And here.
The JJ movies will never be as beloved as TOS (for me anyway), but they're fine for what they are, and I see nothing wrong with liking both.

 

[RandyS]

People lose me when they call TOS campy. It was no more camp than any other hour long drama in the late 60s. It definitely wasn't Batman. Individual episodes might go camp and over the top, but the show wasn't camp.

Agreed. The sense I get is that it's the younger folks who say this and it's usually because, 1, they don't know any better, and 2, the characters in TOS are not falling all over themselves in never-ending angst the way TV shows do nowdays.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Sounds more like the hype, than what Star Trek (TOS) was really about. It was an action adventure show that blended the issues of the time into the action along with a touch of drama and a hint of romance.

Funny how that basically describes Into Darkness, when the vocal minority keeps insisting it doesn't get Star Trek right.

 

[Zonker]

"YES, THE STAR TREK FORMAT IS ACTUALLY THAT SIMPLE. IF YOU'RE A TV PROFESSIONAL, YOU ALREADY KNOW THE FOLLOWING SEVEN RULES:
I. Build your episode on an action-adventure frame- work. We must reach out, hold and entertain a mass audience of some 20.,000,000 people or we simply don't stay on the air."

-TOS Writers Guide
https://www.bu.edu/clarion/guides/Star_Trek_Writers_Guide.pdf

 

[SiddFinch1]

Personally I like all trek to one degree or another....as to the nu trek..not as much as tos but it's fun and enjoyable. For the most part it "feels" like trek despite plot holes (which tos and the movies and all the shows had plenty of as well)

I hope they continue past this movie and hope some books get okayed to expand on the nu universe

 

[Pauln6]

Star Trek movies work better if they are swashbuckling IMO and in that respect the new movies work exceptionally well. It's only really the characterisation of Scotty that I dislike and I'm irritated at their near total lack of respect for the recurring female characters from TOS.

Professional women movie characters do not need to be love interests for heroes and yet it seems when they could not work the 60s infatuation plots into the script the women were jetisoned. Chekov's funny accent was sufficient reason to artificially age him for inclusion even though he bounces around like a lost puppy with no niche or purpose. The excuses for not including the women look like lame sexism that I don't want to see in a modern sci fi franchise.

Overall, I just wish that the movies were a bit smarter in their execution. I would have been stoked if they'd used Captain Garth instead of NuKhan. It was one homage too far for me. But do I enjoy them? Yes I do.

 

[Nyotarules]

No I like TOS (just cos it was the first but DS9 is my fav ST show) and ST09; STID I think was done as an intentional parody and I love it on that basis only.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

I also am a fan TOS, the 2009 film, as well as DS9 to a degree...but I didn't care for the 2013 film. Yes, I'm looking forward to the 2016 film.

I also hope this universe, the nuUniverse, gets expanded.