Simple Question: Do You Like The Reboots?
- Thread starter Mudd
- Start date
I didn't tell him not to have an opinion. I also didn't tell him he is supposed to like or support the Abrams films. If you can't tell the difference between having an opinion or discussion and going into raging "Hulk Smash!!!" mode whenever something comes up in a discussion, then I can't really help you.
The same poll in the Trek XI+ forum is running from 3:1 to 4:1. But even then, that 1.49:1 shows that fandom is not universally united against the Abrams movies. Which is why the polls were created to begin with.
Well yeah... no surprise there, after all isn't the Trek XI+ forum mainly fr people who enjoy the new movies and want to discuss them? I, for example have hardly ever been in there or the TOS forum, because they are dedicated to parts of Trek I don't care about. I didn't even know there was a poll there, so the sample size might be a tiny bit skewed, like going to a Dr. Who convention and conducting a poll there if people like the show.
And was there ever really a question that the "fandom" is universally united against Mr. Abram? It's very clear from every time the reboots come up here that there are people who love them for various reasons, people who hate them for various reasons and people with every opinion on them in-between.
A
Amaris
Guest
I think Bill's referring to the notion that Paramount was disappointed in J.J. Abrams/nuTrek, when the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. When that evidence is presented, the speaker then moves on to say that Star Trek fans didn't like the film, and when that is disproven, the speaker often continues on to the idea that no "true" Star Trek fan enjoyed the films.
If you're a fan of the films, there's no way to win in a conversation like that. I feel that it's best to ignore such people, even though sometimes it gets annoying because they like to be so very vocal about it. I loved the films, some people didn't, and that's okay. There are people who loved Nemesis, and while I think it's alright-ish, I wouldn't dream of tearing someone down for enjoying it, nor would I call them fake fans, or say that their Star Trek isn't "real" Star Trek.
Ah I see....I didn't even know Paramount was disappointed in the Abrams movies.
Lol what....no "true" Star Trek fan liking the movies?
Well that's just a silly (let alone snobbish) argument!Plenty of people who enjoy the rest of Star Trek enjoy the movies.
And if even that wasn't so, people who are fans of the Abrams movies, even if they had no interest in anything from TOS to Nemesis, are by definition fans of Star Trek = Star Trek fans.
You are right arguments like that are best ignored.
It was just another strawman.
A
Amaris
Guest
Ah I see....I didn't even know Paramount was disappointed in the Abrams movies.
Lol what....no "true" Star Trek fan liking the movies?
Plenty of people who enjoy the rest of Star Trek enjoy the movies.
And if even that wasn't so, people who are fans of the Abrams movies, even if they had no interest in anything from TOS to Nemesis, are by definition fans of Star Trek = Star Trek fans.
You are right arguments like that are best ignored.
Exactly. Star Trek is Star Trek is Star Trek. People can disagree about what they like, but trying to say that one aspect is Star Trek while the other isn't, is just disingenuous, and that kind of thing is best left untouched.
Of course, I say that as someone who has been drawn into the argument a hundred times over.
IrishNero
Commodore
He's probably more in his element directing action-based films that are a little less cerebral than Trek movies are proclaimed to be (not that I've seen that in a while, but OK). In any case, I think he's less of a fish out of water in a more fantasy-based venture such as Star Wars.
Not seeing a lot of fantasy in his resume.
Done so with the whole poll that rated Into Darkness as the "worst" Trek film of them all. The population being limited to one panel at one convention. Hardly a comprehensive study.
That said, the broad sweeping declarations, both for and against, really are not beneficial to a discussion of the topic. If any meaningful imparting of information, even if there is not consensus, then the "not real Trek/fan" labeling would be well left behind.
That said, I have certainly reevaluated my opinion on ID, in particular. When I first saw it, my expectations were driven so low by negative commentary any enjoyment was going to be a win.
So, I'm sure there is fatigue in expressing opinions with regard Abrams film, again, for or against, but I am one who wants to hear it, discuss it, and evaluate it.
IrishNero
Commodore
OK, well then perhaps he will do better where much of the fanbase isn't so ready for him to fail. Come to think of it, he's probably going to torque a lot of Star Wars fans too.
He knew the job was dangerous when he took it.
OK, well then perhaps he will do better where much of the fanbase isn't so ready for him to fail. Come to think of it, he's probably going to torque a lot of Star Wars fans too.
Your loss.
Please forgive me as I don't know the major players on this forum. I have only been here a few days and was previously largely unaware of such ire toward Abrams Trek. Perhaps that's why seeing these differing opinions doesn't bother me. In fact, it's actually interesting to see. Time will tell if that will remain that way if I've been arguing the same points with the same people for six years.
I grew up with the original series. In fact, I was born the year it went on the air. I built models of the Enterprise and dreamed of piloting a shuttle into the landing bay. I loved TNG too. I watched episodes of it in the desert during my time in the desert in 1990-1991. I enjoyed all of the follow-on shows and watched all of the movies too.
When I first heard they were making Trek with the original crew, I too cringed. But I begrudgingly admit that they were good movies. Not the best, but very solid. The effects were amazing and some of the casting, such as Carl Urban and Zack Quinto was spot-on. It was enough to convince me that they hadn't totally fumbled the ball. And it brought Trek to a new generation.
And let's face it, Trek had been off the air for four years. It wasn't going anywhere anytime soon without these new movies. And even though these movies were big hits, six years later, there is still no new series on the horizon. Eventually, perhaps ST would have faded into oblivion, with us fans debating about the best of ST on various forums until we're all in the ground...
Perhaps I'm more forgiving but I think these movies carried the franchise flag well. These aren't the best movies but they're not the worst either. However, I don't think that many of these complaints are based upon the merits of the movies so much as the concept that no one could ever replace Shatner and Nimoy. I think there is almost a god-like quality they have been bestowed over the decades, and I think there is a certain segment that would absolutely never accept that someone else could portray Kirk and Spock other than them. Then there are the other differences such as the redesigned nacelles and such. These things don't bode well for someone who has been watching ST all of their life and already has an ingrained concept of how ST should look like. I get that.
But I think you have to keep an open mind.
In any case, I will close by saying that these new movies are in the books and there is nothing we can do about it but accept it. As my supervisor in the military used to tell us when we had to do something we didn't want to accept: It is what it is...
Very nice post.
I just didn't like them. That's no comment on quality, profitablity, or whatever measure of success or failure that's popular to mention.
For example: They made the most money, which is a claim I'm not sure about, but anyway, their profitablity really doesn't help me like them any more. There have many movies that have been declared unprofitable or even box office bombs that I liked. My liking of it didn't help it's bottom line and I'm a little disappointed no sequel would be coming, but that's all. Not to move off Star Trek, but Dredd really should have done better, I really enjoy that movie. Star Trek 09 did a lot better and I didn't enjoy it. There's no corollary between these facts, but I've seen supporters of the film telling my why I'm wrong based on it.
But fortunately not recently, and that's good.
I like them OK, but I still voted no.
The universe they present doesn't bear thinking about extensively in the same way previous Trek does, and that's what I like so much about Star Trek.
The universe they present doesn't bear thinking about extensively in the same way previous Trek does, and that's what I like so much about Star Trek.
What does that even mean? Star Trek isn't a singular effort. The spin offs and film sequels are all based on the "gold" of TOS. Most made by people with little or no connection to TOS. The reboots are no different. So unless you think Star Trek ended in 1969, I don't get it. Actually, even thinking Star Trek ended in 1969 doesn't help.
So you think something you never seen is "unpure" and "trash"? That makes even less sense. The hyperbolic language makes me hope you're joking.
Similar threads
