Star Trek Fundamentalism

[Lord Garth]

I manage to criticise posters' tactics and antics without attacking them just fine. Before, during, and after I was on the staff.

More often then not, it's not what someone says but how they say it.

 

[Captain X]

]Its just as right as B&B,

Yeah, we all saw how well that worked out in the end, too.

When did this become a matter or right and wrong?

When an idea sucks like a massive hull breech, it's usually considered wrong to go along with it anyway.

Anyone who is seeing it in those terms has lost perspective.

Or anyone who sees it from the perspective that the franchise has become "stale and predictable" means that a reboot is required to make it better has lost perspective.

Its a fictional universe, subject to be reinvented when it becomes stale and predicable.

Fixing what's been lacking with Star Trek would not require a reboot. In fact, a TOS movie would have been a great way to bring some excitement back to the franchise, especially with new blood producing it. Unfortunately JJ hopped on the remake bandwagon and we aren't really getting a TOS movie.

Paramount the proper owners of the thing are free to hand the keys over and say: "Go take it for a spin, if like how you ride'r maybe you keep her warm for a few years." and I say good on them!

"Just because we can do a thing, does not mean that we must do that thing." - Federation President, ST6

 

[ancient]

I manage to criticise posters' tactics and antics without attacking them just fine. Before, during, and after I was on the staff.

More often then not, it's not what someone says but how they say it.

OH Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaally?

 

[Lord Garth]

^ Okay, so maybe I told a troll (a real troll) to "fuck off" when I closed a thread once and flipped out at Enterpriser one time, and I didn't like Pete, but who can blame me for any of that?

All in all, when you look at ten years, I'd say the ratio wasn't bad.

 

[pookha]

But that still doesn't answer my question, and frankly it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is about this movie. Basically what you're saying is that if it was ok for them to screw up before (which it wasn't, and is the reason people still discuss and complain about the mistakes to this day), that it should be ok for JJ to have free reign to basically do whatever the frak he wants with the franchise. That doesn't make any sense.

no ,
part of the point is what part of canon do you follow when there are some stark contradictions within it.

and at other times things just dont blend well together.
some of the science mentioned in the cage makes no sense in context of the rest of the series.

really if one thinks about it..where no man is almost a reboot of the cage.
the level of technology seems to leap ahead.
heck the federation dosnt even appear in tos toward the mid part of the first season.

the point is maybe one has to go and try and capture the spirit of star trek, the essence of the characters.
while letting go some of the detail stuff that at times was contradictory.

 

[xortex]

But that still doesn't answer my question, and frankly it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is about this movie. Basically what you're saying is that if it was ok for them to screw up before (which it wasn't, and is the reason people still discuss and complain about the mistakes to this day), that it should be ok for JJ to have free reign to basically do whatever the frak he wants with the franchise. That doesn't make any sense.

no ,
part of the point is what part of canon do you follow when there are some stark contradictions within it.

and at other times things just dont blend well together.
some of the science mentioned in the cage makes no sense in context of the rest of the series.

really if one thinks about it..where no man is almost a reboot of the cage.
the level of technology seems to leap ahead.
heck the federation dosnt even appear in tos toward the mid part of the first season.

the point is maybe one has to go and try and capture the spirit of star trek, the essence of the characters.
while letting go some of the detail stuff that at times was contradictory.

What was the essence of the characters? The spirit/heart, the brain and the body. Can a character exist in contradiction to itself? This is not a prequil and I will never accept it as such.

 

[number6]

You're right, it isn't a prequil. It's a prequel.

 

[Captain Robert April]

^Since it's an alternate timeline, it's not really a prequel. It's a half-assed reboot.

As for the thread....

 

[number6]

^You're right. We should discuss the off axis rotation of the bridge instead.

 

[DaveyNY]

Or perhaps We should Really Discuss how FUNDAMENTALLY OFF AXIS We All are, for going on and on about such things?

 

[Naldo]

Remember, Captain Pike has a CRT Television in a wooden frame in his quarters. Does that make such apparati canon?

Jesus H.

 

[Plumster]

It is right and it is proper.

No it's not.

Your apparent version of Trek bored the pants off the viewing public.

I think you're sadly mistaken, about a great many things.


Uh, what?


No, there's a new version because JJ Abrams decided to fuck around with the "old" version instead of making an actual TOS movie like he said he was poing to.

Are you saying that the format should be limited to whatever you and few thousand zealots think Trek is?

Are you?

What I'm saying is that a TOS movie should actually be a TOS movie and not a reboot.

I hope not - as that makes you part of the problem.

It's not me having the hissy fit chum.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

What I'm saying is that a TOS movie should actually be a TOS movie and not a reboot.

"TOS" stands for The Original Series.

There can not be a The Original Series movie.

There never has been a The Original Series movies.

There have been six Trek movies that utilized the characters and setting of The Original Series.

They were TOS-based movies.

J.J. Abrams is making another Trek film utilizing the characters and settings from The Original Series. He's making another TOS-based movie. The difference is that his is set in the period prior to The Original Series whereas the previous movies were set in the period following The Original Series.

And I don't care about all this "alternate timeline" stuff. It makes my ass hurt.

 

[Captain X]

no ,
part of the point is what part of canon do you follow when there are some stark contradictions within it.

You go with what makes the most sense and stick with it. But what is the point to arguing this as a merit of doing a reboot.

the point is maybe one has to go and try and capture the spirit of star trek, the essence of the characters.
while letting go some of the detail stuff that at times was contradictory.

Except that isn't what's being done here, because basically only the names are the same. And as for the "spirit of Star Trek" - no one can agree what that even is, so the point is moot.

It's not me having the hissy fit chum.

Actually, yeah, I'd qualify the rant you opened this thread with as a hissy hit, "chum".

"TOS" stands for The Original Series.

Gee, really?

There can not be a The Original Series movie.

There never has been a The Original Series movies.

There have been six Trek movies that utilized the characters and setting of The Original Series.

They were TOS-based movies.

Oh, I see, so you're going to argue semantics with me when it's really obvious that I mean to say a TOS-era movie should actually be made to resemble that era, instead of completely redoing everything.

J.J. Abrams is making another Trek film utilizing the characters and settings from The Original Series.

He's just using the names.

He's making another TOS-based movie.

He's making another sci-fi remake movie, Just like The Day the Earth Stood Still and so many others before it and that are coming up in the near future.

The difference is that his is set in the period prior to The Original Series whereas the previous movies were set in the period following The Original Series.

No, his movie is set in a rebooted version of the universe we were shown in TOS and onwards.

And I don't care about all this "alternate timeline" stuff. It makes my ass hurt.

Blame the people making this movie for that, because it's their line of bullshit. Really it's just a weak attempt to placate the fans into accepting their in-universe reboot.

 

[Plumster]

no ,
part of the point is what part of canon do you follow when there are some stark contradictions within it.

You go with what makes the most sense and stick with it. But what is the point to arguing this as a merit of doing a reboot.

the point is maybe one has to go and try and capture the spirit of star trek, the essence of the characters.
while letting go some of the detail stuff that at times was contradictory.

Except that isn't what's being done here, because basically only the names are the same. And as for the "spirit of Star Trek" - no one can agree what that even is, so the point is moot.


Actually, yeah, I'd qualify the rant you opened this thread with as a hissy hit, "chum".


Gee, really?


Oh, I see, so you're going to argue semantics with me when it's really obvious that I mean to say a TOS-era movie should actually be made to resemble that era, instead of completely redoing everything.


He's just using the names.


He's making another sci-fi remake movie, Just like The Day the Earth Stood Still and so many others before it and that are coming up in the near future.

The difference is that his is set in the period prior to The Original Series whereas the previous movies were set in the period following The Original Series.

No, his movie is set in a rebooted version of the universe we were shown in TOS and onwards.

And I don't care about all this "alternate timeline" stuff. It makes my ass hurt.

Blame the people making this movie for that, because it's their line of bullshit. Really it's just a weak attempt to placate the fans into accepting their in-universe reboot.

Christ on a crutch - my kids make less noise than you.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Sometimes I feel that May has come and gone...

And everyone but me has seen the movie and know everything about the characters and the movie universe and the plot.

But then I realize it's still February. Phew... I still have plenty of time to prepare for the premiere.

 

[Plumster]

Captain X - my original and extant position.

A split in fandom is upon us it seems to me.

1) There are those who, no matter what, will denounce this film as divisive, destructive and evil. They agitate, they snipe, they cry rape.

I despise them, they sicken me, they killed Trek.

You may discuss - I'll allow that.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Ladies and gentlemen, if we quit feeing these trolls they just might starve to death, or, better yet, turn on each other. Either way they'd out of our misery.

 

[Captain X]

Christ on a crutch - my kids make less noise than you.

The difference between that discussion and any you've had with me is that while pookha is truly interested in debating the nature of the movie and the rest of the franchise, and arguing the validity of doing a reboot movie, you only seem interested in antagonizing critics of the movie.

Captain X - my original and extant position.

A split in fandom is upon us it seems to me.

Gee, really? Actually there have always been splits in the fandom, even within the fandoms of specific series, like the 'shippers. Even in those groups there are splits, and there always will be as long as people find something to disagree about. This isn't difficult to understand, so you're essentially preaching to the choir with that statement.

1) There are those who, no matter what, will denounce this film as divisive, destructive and evil. They agitate, they snipe, they cry rape.

I despise them, they sicken me, they killed Trek.

And this is where the troll comes in, because you've made a very negative generalized statement about critics of the movie, completely discounting their actual opinion or why they might have it, and it seems to me designed to garner a response. Congratulations, I know I'm not the only one to bite. The thing is, you're wrong, not because there aren't people who don't like this film and are very vocal about it, but because for most of them, it's not "no matter what", they've simply seen the same information you have and decided they don't like the movie and/or what it represents. Despise them all you want, but that isn't what killed Trek. What killed Trek was a lack of imagination on the part of the people making it, leading to formulaic and cliched storytelling, and being stuck on an apathetic TV station that did very little to support it. In essence, JJ Abrams is making the same mistakes by doing a remake of the show (the same as a lot of other movies lately and shows a certain lack of imagination), and still keeping a lot of the same old cliches and formulas that made Trek get boring and die to begin with. Not to mention that my rebooting the franchise, he is symbolically killing Star Trek as a franchise. Agree or disagree, that's my take on it.

 

[trevanian]

Remember, Captain Pike has a CRT Television in a wooden frame in his quarters. Does that make such apparati canon?

Jesus H.

And Kirk has a Vic20 in his apartment. They both probably collect relics, if you need a justification (and the antiques angle is even invoked in TWOK.)