Simple Question: Do You Like The Reboots?

[J.T.B.]

I didn't like them. Having said that, where to go from there? I think my reasons are defensible, and I suppose if it came up and someone was interested I could try to explain them, but normally I really don't find much value in spending time discussing movies I don't care for. I certainly don't mind if anyone else likes them, and they are obviously successful. Just not for me.

 

[urbandefault]

I voted yes, but without getting into big long reviews I do have a few observations. Not hard facts, just what I see.

Quinto delivers a believable Spock, but he does not look or sound even remotely like Nimoy.

Pine is good, but Shatner rules.

Urban is McCoy. 'Nuff said.

Cho is a better Sulu than Takei.

Yeltsin is as Chekov as Chekov gets.

Pegg's Scotty is funny and believable. His "can I get a towel?" is brilliant. And the accent is better than Doohan's.

Zoe Saldana is exquisite. Even if she didn't have lines, just being in a scene raises the awesomeness by a factor of 10.

Something that bothers me though, is that 20-30 year old actors today look much younger to me than 20-30 year old actors 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago. I don't know what it is. Maybe someone has some insight?

 

[bbailey861]

Yes, I like both films and am eagerly awaiting the third.

 

[IrishNero]

Something that bothers me though, is that 20-30 year old actors today look much younger to me than 20-30 year old actors 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago. I don't know what it is. Maybe someone has some insight?

I feel the same. You're older. That's why they all look so young.

 

[Orphalesion]

I'm in my twenties and to me the same is true. Kirk, Spock and McCoy looked OLD even in TOS so much so that I had thought Shatner/Nimoy/DeKelly were 10 years older than they actually were during the series.

The answer is make-up techniques and lifestyle. The 60s make-up tends to make the actors look older and the lifestyles of the people back then....well lets just say they were a bit less healthy than today and wreaked havoc on their skin. Prematurely aged skin -> older appearance.

 

[jmampilly]

I don't dislike the reboots and storyline behind them directly, so much as I dislike their effects. The movies were fun to watch, and catered to a general audience. However, JJ Abrams destroyed decades of canon, by setting up a new universe. Additionally, I recall reading somewhere that TV channels were no longer considering TV shows set in the old universe, because that would confuse viewers. So, Picard, Kirk, and Sisko mean nothing now. Additionally, 21st century effects made all the technology shown in Star Trek reboots look far more advanced. However, this is moderately difficult to reconcile with a supposedly more advanced Federation set 70 years in the future, but with less cool looking technology. JJ Abrams could have reconciled both the problems I have by simply having the new movies take place in the future. Then, the canon wouldn't have been screwed up, and the better looking technology could have made sense. He could even have kept the exact storyline, with a few minor details changed.

 

[eyeresist]

Quinto delivers a believable Spock, but he does not look or sound even remotely like Nimoy.

Pine is good, but Shatner rules.

Urban is McCoy. 'Nuff said.

Cho is a better Sulu than Takei.

Yeltsin is as Chekov as Chekov gets. ...

I find I agree with pretty much all your points here, except I think Quinto's delivery is definitely influenced by Nimoy. The snappy delivery may just be because Abrams wants to get through the dialog as fast as possible. In a way, Pine has the hardest job - how to be a studly leading man hero, but also have that Shatner quirky intensity. I think he may find the role easier when the writers stop having him shag everything that moves!

JJ Abrams destroyed decades of canon, by setting up a new universe. Additionally, I recall reading somewhere that TV channels were no longer considering TV shows set in the old universe, because that would confuse viewers. So, Picard, Kirk, and Sisko mean nothing now.

I don't think the canon was destroyed at all. Trek fans may have affection for previous continuity, but that same continuity puts a tremendous limit on story possibilities, either struggling to link up with the vast and inconsistent canon, or else being criticised for showing something that hasn't been previously referenced.
The characters stand much more chance of lasting, now that really new stories can be told.

Also, related to urbandefault's post above, if Trek is to last, we have to get used to the idea of new interpretations of old characters. No-one says there can be only one Hamlet, so why must there be only one Kirk? Why not be excited about what new actors can bring to old characters?

 

[Makarov]

I don't agree that rebooting old characters is the only way to have new stories or to unshackle themselves from limits of canon. There's a whole universe out there they can explore along with setting it at any point in the future. These reboots are only one of many ways they could do it.

 

[Navigator_NCC2120]

I voted "No" in this forum and I do not go into the "Star Trek Movies XI+" forum so I will not vote there on that poll.

I recall Jonathan Frakes saying in an interview that when TNG was about to originally air that there was rampant skepticism in the industry, that Star Trek could not be made without Kirk and Spock, that it was doomed. Well TNG did not fail, it ran for 7 years in its original run on television and made 4 films based on it afterward. I am ready for Star Trek to move on to the 25th Century and beyond with new characters, new technologies, new places, and new stories. I say let TOS rest in peace and move on, but, perhaps Paramount feels most fans are not ready or willing to move on for sentimental reasons. I grew up watching reruns of TOS, but I still enjoyed TNG, DS9, and VOY just as much as TOS. So I am ready to move on to a new more advanced version of Star Trek without any of the characters that came before.


Navigator NCC-2120, USS Entente
/\

 

[CorporalClegg]

I voted "No" in this forum and I do not go into the "Star Trek Movies XI+" forum so I will not vote there on that poll.

I recall Jonathan Frakes saying in an interview that when TNG was about to originally air that there was rampant skepticism in the industry, that Star Trek could not be made without Kirk and Spock, that it was doomed. Well TNG did not fail, it ran for 7 years in its original run on television and made 4 films based on it afterward. I am ready for Star Trek to move on to the 25th Century and beyond with new characters, new technologies, new places, and new stories. I say let TOS rest in peace and move on, but, perhaps Paramount feels most fans are not ready or willing to move on for sentimental reasons. I grew up watching reruns of TOS, but I still enjoyed TNG, DS9, and VOY just as much as TOS. So I am ready to move on to a new more advanced version of Star Trek without any of the characters that came before.


Navigator NCC-2120, USS Entente
/\

TV =/= Film

Your argument is void.

 

[Makarov]

How does that in any way void his argument?

 

[Sparkle Fabulosa]

Because of this thread I decided to watch the first reboot. Just finished about 20 minutes ago. I really enjoyed it. The storyline was very interesting and I liked how all the original characters were introduced. I plan on watching Into Darkness and then some more TOS.

 

[Navigator_NCC2120]

I voted "No" in this forum and I do not go into the "Star Trek Movies XI+" forum so I will not vote there on that poll.

I recall Jonathan Frakes saying in an interview that when TNG was about to originally air that there was rampant skepticism in the industry, that Star Trek could not be made without Kirk and Spock, that it was doomed. Well TNG did not fail, it ran for 7 years in its original run on television and made 4 films based on it afterward. I am ready for Star Trek to move on to the 25th Century and beyond with new characters, new technologies, new places, and new stories. I say let TOS rest in peace and move on, but, perhaps Paramount feels most fans are not ready or willing to move on for sentimental reasons. I grew up watching reruns of TOS, but I still enjoyed TNG, DS9, and VOY just as much as TOS. So I am ready to move on to a new more advanced version of Star Trek without any of the characters that came before.


Navigator NCC-2120, USS Entente
/\

TV =/= Film

Your argument is void.

I never said TV equals Film. You missed my point, which is a Star Trek film can be made without Kirk, Spock and the rest, in a different era with different characters. Rebooting TOS was not necessary in my opinion. I posted Jonathan Frakes comments about TNG TV Series because it seems like Paramount Execs might be thinking about Star Trek films now as the TV industry did 28 years ago about Star Trek then.

People paid to see the 4 sequels to the 1968 version of "Planet of the Apes" even though Charlton Heston and his character Col. George Taylor were not in 3 of them (I know there was reference to Taylor in the third one ("Escape...") with brief flashback footage of him from the first film). I know it was not a tv series first, but people still went to see it without him and his character in it. The same with Star Trek, I am willing to see it without Kirk and the rest, give us a new version of Star Trek Films in a different time with different characters, not more reboots.



Navigator NCC-2120, USS Entente
/\

 

[erastus25]

The first one is decent.

The second one is terrible.

Gets a no vote from me.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

People paid to see the 4 sequels to the 1968 version of "Planet of the Apes" even though Charlton Heston and his character Col. George Taylor were not in 3 of them (I know there was reference to Taylor in the third one ("Escape...") with brief flashback footage of him from the first film). I know it was not a tv series first, but people still went to see it without him and his character in it.

You're aware that each of those films earned less than the one before and that the last entry was all but universally panned by critics, right? No contemporary executive in his or her right mind would want to run a franchise worth billions into the ground following that strategy.

 

[IrishNero]

People paid to see the 4 sequels to the 1968 version of "Planet of the Apes" even though Charlton Heston and his character Col. George Taylor were not in 3 of them (I know there was reference to Taylor in the third one ("Escape...") with brief flashback footage of him from the first film). I know it was not a tv series first, but people still went to see it without him and his character in it.

You're aware that each of those films earned less than the one before and that the last entry was all but universally panned by critics, right? No contemporary executive in his or her right mind would want to run a franchise worth billions into the ground following that strategy.

No, they wouldn't intentionally run a franchise into the ground using that strategy. The problem is, they have to recognize beforehand that their chosen strategy is unsound. Which often does not happen.

 

[BillJ]

However, JJ Abrams destroyed decades of canon, by setting up a new universe.

It is still fucking there. I still don't know how people cannot grasp this simple concept!

Additionally, I recall reading somewhere that TV channels were no longer considering TV shows set in the old universe, because that would confuse viewers. So, Picard, Kirk, and Sisko mean nothing now.

Star Trek plays daily at 4pm on MeTV. Star Trek: The Next Generation plays on BBC America. All the show are available on Netflix and Amazon streaming. Any NEW show would've also ditched the Prime universe, simply because it was time too.

Additionally, 21st century effects made all the technology shown in Star Trek reboots look far more advanced. However, this is moderately difficult to reconcile with a supposedly more advanced Federation set 70 years in the future, but with less cool looking technology. JJ Abrams could have reconciled both the problems I have by simply having the new movies take place in the future. Then, the canon wouldn't have been screwed up, and the better looking technology could have made sense. He could even have kept the exact storyline, with a few minor details changed.

Dude, they're stories. They are all fictional constructs designed to entertain people, not be a history lesson of the future.

 

[Orphalesion]

Why do people dismiss the criticism that the reboots did away with the continuity? Even if it is still there in that Prime Universe both the big and the small screen will likely never visit again, it is not present in the new universe any new incarnation of ST (film or TV) is likely to focus on.
Pretty much everything I was a fan of in the Star Trek universe was removed. Why should that not contribute to my dislike of the movies?

If there was a new TV show set in the Abramsverse, however, I would still give it a chance, but I would be happier if it included at least some elements from all Trek Shows, such as nuHarry Mudd in the comic adaption being actually his half-Bajoran daughter. Something like that would already be enough for me.

As for continuity "stifling" creativity or reducing the possibility for stories....no...that's like the old "telepaths are hard to write" excuse the TNG writers used for making Troi useless. I can't think of much in the new movies that could not have been done in the prime universe, if they wanted.

Now if I liked the movies otherwise the reboot-status would not bother me as much. But I don't like them and they are reboots...

 

[Vandervecken]

I like them as action-adventure movies set in space that make reference to Star Trek.

They're not really Star Trek.

Ding ding ding. A winner.



These are Trek like a Walker is the living person.

---------------

Taken for what they are, and pretending that they don't likely make an ignominious end to a generally glorious though imperfect franchise, I saw condescendingly scripted action movies, all of it hideously predictable and, except for the rather perfect McCoy, poorly and unconvincingly acted. They're bad movies even before they get to be bad Trek movies; if they hadn't had the Trek logo and many millions thrown at them, they'd have been unknown, direct-to-video losers. Both of them.


Edited to add: ah, that's a "no."

 

[xvicente]

What I cant understand is how/why/WTH so many people say ST2009 is so good even though Nero is in it.