Star Trek Reboot was amazing. I don't understand the hate!

[OneAngryRomulan]

I'm 31 years old. I was a child of the 80's, back when we had about 6 TV stations on a 12 dial television and that was just that.

It was from those days that my appreciation for Star Trek TOS began. They turned me into what I would now define as a "closet Trekkie." All of my friends today talk about Star Trek with absolute hatred. To them it's just `geek central` and that's all there is too it. Guys in pajamas with phasers.

The fact is Star Trek TOS was often really smart television. You had to know a little bit about something to fully appreciate some of the episodes - philosophical, Shakespearean, whatever.

They're just great. I still love them today. Every time I stumble upon an episode of TOS in the wee hours of the night I at least stop to check out what episode it is (wouldn't want to miss a classic!).

And it's because I love the TOS and the characters and a lot of the mythology and for that reason I also have an iron stomach for the mediocrity that became Star Trek later.
If i'm home on a rainy Saturday afternoon and Star Trek 4 is on and Kirk & Co. are traveling back in time to get whales, i'll watch it. I'll even enjoy it.

But let's be honest... it's mediocre. A lot of those movies didn't have the greatest scripts. They were workable, I can watch them, but they often seriously lacked the genius of a lot of the TOS episodes that really kicked the whole thing off.
In fact, i'll just come out and say it: Kirk going back in time to get two fish to save future Earth is like some random Star Trek fan fiction writer winning a a high budget movie deal in Hollywood bingo.

It's good for people who are already Star Trek fans (that is to say it's just more Star Trek), but it isn't something that's going to bring in a whole bunch of new fans or a new generation of fans or set the world on fire in any way, shape, or form. It's just 2 hours of going back in time to get two fish.

(And for the record, I DO like those movies).

And what about TNG movies? The truth is those actors weren't movie actors. They're television actors. Big difference. And while I did like TNG (I remember being a kid when it first came out!) really Picard is the only reason is succeeds. Whether you like all the other characters or not (I do) they're just props for Picard which was a great new look for a Star Fleet Captain completely opposite Kirk in a lot of ways. Without Picard, TNG would be epic fail.

And DSN and (ugh) Voyager were, again, just shows for Star Trek fans. Star Trek for the sake of Star Trek. Nothing to really ignite the franchise.

(I'm getting to a point! Really! Here it comes!)

Star Trek TOS laid out a pretty rich Universe. So why make movies about Whales? (I know, Khan, etc).

But who can deny, with so much mediocrity in the scripts of some of the Star Trek movies, that Hollywood just dropped the ball on so many levels and gave us more Star Trek for the sake of more Star Trek? All of the movies have their shining moments, but with Vulcans and Romulans and Klingons, and "strange new life and new civilizations," who can deny that as a total package the ball was completely dropped?

So i'm glad that the Universe has now changed. I'm glad that Spock and Nero went back in time and ruined everything.

Because now Captain Kirk's legacy as a great Captain can be more epic (on the big screen) than it EVER was with the other movies. Now it can go back to TOS epic x 100.

It goes without saying that Star Trek TOS was what REALLY defined the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise and I think it goes without saying that J.J. Abrams agrees, as demonstrated by his execution of his latest Star Trek movie.

If your Star Trek fans you cannoy deny the lengths some of the actors went to to at least show glimpses of the old character (Bones did great with this!!!). These guys are fans. Not just looking to cash in on Star Trek fans.

This post was inspired by all the hate i've read in the last twenty four hours by Star Trek loyalists on the internet about Vulcan being destroyed and the timeline being reset.

I just had to say, even if a few years late, that I couldn't disagree more. Running around NYC looking for whales isn't "boldly going where no man has gone before."

My hats off to all the original actors and what they did to create all of those great characters but the fact is they were lead into largely mediocre story telling. That "timeline" will always be there as what `did happen` but I now can't wait to see what will happen. More over, IMO, what `should` have happened.

J.J. Abrams FTW!

 

[OneAngryRomulan]

Oh, FYI: I just saw the new Star Trek movie last night! lol.
Little late to the party.
I was so impressed I watched it again tonight and it inspired me to register.

I went digging online for information afterwards and saw a lot of hate from the die hards which is why I posted.

I meant to fit that information into the post somewhere lol.

 

[OneAngryRomulan]

And aside from Karl Urban often doing a youthful, almost impersonation of the classic McCoy character, I loved how Chris Pine also did the same with Kirk at the very end.

I don't think I was just looking too deeply into it when in the very end of the movie when he's taking the bridge after relieving Captain Pike that he did a spot on replication of the Kirk strut from TOS.

If it was just a bunch of actors coming on to "do their own thing" I would understand the opposition to "rebooting" the timeline but when they've gone above and beyond in playing characters that are already established it's really hard to hate it. It also shows how good of actors they are. Not everyone could just do a spot on Kirk strut just because he's charged with playing Kirk.

Great stuff.

I'm also wondering what those more knowledgable about the lore speculate about how the drastic destiny changes will develop.

What does the destruction of Vulcan mean for the Romulans and the Klingons? Is that sort of abrupt power vacuum a call for Klingon and Romulan aggression?

This is why I love that they destroyed Vulcan like that. It gives them a cataclysm to completely and even violently shake up the entire geo political situation of what we know as Star Trek history. It's like falling out of a blackhole in 1942 and dropping A bombs on America and the Soviet Union during WWII. Clearly things will not progress the same.

I wonder if the reference to Nero wiping out the Klingon's in the movie will come back in the next film. Maybe the other space faring races won't be so quick to believe it was a time travelling Romulan that wiped out all their ships and destroyed Vulcan. Star Trek could be in for a major war.

On the flip side, instead of going directly into "epic space war trilogy mode" it might also be refreshing to simply start with them "exploring strange new worlds" TOS style at first with that sort of war brewing for the last few movies of a six part saga (maybe overly optimistic).

 

[donners22]

Sigh, another person who questions how people could possibly dislike something which they enjoy, and casually dismisses shows which others like.


Kudos for the passion and I'm glad you liked it, but you show the same attitude as those you are questioning.

Nothing personal, and good on you for joining the forums to express your opinion, but it's a tendency which really bugs me.

 

[C.E. Evans]

"Why don't people like the things I like?!?"

If there's one thing about fandom (if not about people in general) is that there are different tastes and different viewpoints out there, and not everyone is going to agree that the same thing is wonderful.

 

[F. King Daniel]

This post was inspired by all the hate i've read in the last twenty four hours by Star Trek loyalists on the internet about Vulcan being destroyed and the timeline being reset.

The discontents very very loud, but the film was a big enough success that they're filming a sequel as we speak, and there's a good possibilty there'll be a third one. So, I think it's safe to say those who enjoyed the movie far outweigh those who hate it.

I love it to death, but I love the older Treks a great deal, too.

As for the timeline reset, the writers of the movie say that according to the Next Gen episode "Parallels", the TOS/TNG/VOY/DS9 and movies I-X timeline it still out there somewhen. Novels like "The Needs of the Many" (set about 30 years after Spock and Nero fall into the black hole, in the TNG/DS9/VOY universe) and "Watching the Clock" (which goes into detail about time travels and alternate histories) back this up.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

The hate for the new movie among fans of the old shows and movies is simple. Star Trek 09 is Star Trek viewed through the lenses of Hollywood. It took me awhile to discover why I disliked this film after really enjoying it for months, then going back to liking it again. Star Trek 09 is the same big budget, designed to make money, hyper marketed to the masses movie that the Pirates of the Caribbean, Transformers, G.I. Joe, and Spiderman series are. The latter with the reboot Amazing Spiderman hasn't even been released yet but Colombia Pictures already gave it the green light for a sequel. Like wtf? The problem fans had/have with Trek 09 is that it's not about making art, it's about making money. Paramount milked the series to it's death in the 90's and early 00's. And 4 years later they reboot the continuity to bring in the millions they've been missing since Trek has been off the air.

I like Trek 09. It's a wonderful homage to TOS. Everything looks great and the new actors are wonderful in their roles. Yes JJ went overboard with the lens flares, and Nero is a lame villain and his ship is kinda stupid but the film is solid. I look forward to them continuing the series.

For detractors of the new film think about it this way. Star Trek 09 isn't out to be better than all the other shows and films. It's purpose is to pay tribute to TOS. Watch with the mindset that's it's a homage and you will be alright.

 

[OneAngryRomulan]

Eaaaasy. I don't think I questioned the intelligence of people who disliked it or anything. I'm just saying I disagree with them and their concerns.

I mean, I partially understand it. If Lucas made a movie tomorrow about a Sith Lord going back in time and assassinating Anakin Skywalker as a child so the story of Anakin "never existed" i'd be like WTF. I just don't think this does that.

And we also have a reality to face: TOS stars can't play these roles forever. It's either do this or go with a completely different crew and not one of the Star Trek TOS spin offs have come even close to matching the original. TNG deserves recognition (again, purely because of Picard) but the others?
Meh...

Kirk, Spock, Bones, etc, are to Star Trek what Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader is to Star Wars. Without them it's just a spin off, Star Trek for the sake of Star Trek.

And I think destroying Vulcan was genius.

TOS is where it's at for Star Trek. It was great story telling (most of the time). It asked questions. It explored cultural and philosophical concepts. TNG did this a little but not in the same way. The others were just science fiction shows with the Star Trek label.

TOS was science fiction, but not in the same way as Starship Troopers or Aliens was. It wasn't just "science fiction," it was more than just that. Star Trek '09 I think laid the foundation to go back to this. I can't wait to see where they go with it.

As for it just being produced for the masses. It was made to appeal to them but I don't think it's fair to say it wasn't also art in the spirit of true Star Trek. The dialogue was very well written, the execution from a story telling perspective was incredible. You mention movies like Spiderman and Pirates as if that's a bad thing. Pirates started off as a blockbuster movie made with a bunch of character actors. It's not like this is an Arnold movie from the 90's that will be unwatchable in ten years. This was quality story telling.

As for Nero, I thought he was a great intro villain and you can't take him for anymore than that. He's the Darth Maul.
If you're going to do a trilogy (or perhaps a 4+ saga) you can't begin with a villain that's untoppable. The Enterprise crew was fresh out of the academy and so with that in mind Nero was a good villain for them to begin on.

I do agree the ship was a little much, though lol.
Not sure why the drill beam caused transporters to not work or why a mining station had such firepower but it is what it is - a first impossible challenge for the Enterprise team to somehow overcome. Everyone got to contribute and showcase their characters strengths with it all coming together under Kirk's leadership.

I guarantee in the films to come a much greater villain will be pitted against them than a disgruntled miner with a supership.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I mean, I partially understand it. If Lucas made a movie tomorrow about a Sith Lord going back in time and assassinating Anakin Skywalker as a child so the story of Anakin "never existed" i'd be like WTF. I just don't think this does that.

Ah yeah Lucas is doing that with his tv series Star Wars Underworld.

And I think destroying Vulcan was genius.

If you feel that was you should watch Star Trek Of Gods and Men, made by Tim Russ. It was filmed in 2006. In it he has Vulcan destroyed. Alot of Star Trek 09 is borrowed ideas from successfull or previous Star Trek media

As for it just being produced for the masses. It was made to appeal to them but I don't think it's fair to say it wasn't also art in the spirit of true Star Trek. The dialogue was very well written, the execution from a story telling perspective was incredible. You mention movies like Spiderman and Pirates as if that's a bad thing. Pirates started off as a blockbuster movie made with a bunch of character actors. It's not like this is an Arnold movie from the 90's that will be unwatchable in ten years. This was quality story telling.

I meant to say by marketing it to the masses it loses alot of the heart of Star Trek and becomes a generic summer scifi action movie. That makes it easier for general audience to digest, and pay for repeated viewings and not feel nerdy.

Pirates of the Caribbean was unique and special with it's first movie. But with it's popularity we keep seeing sequel after disappointing sequel. The Hollywood execs have $ signs in their eyes and are willing to run any franchise into the ground that'll pay out megamillions. Why do you think we've been seeing part 1 and back 2 of certain movies recently? Every Harry Potter movie has made $900+ million to a billion, every Twilight movie has made $400-700 million+, everyLOTR film has made $900+ to a billion. By dividing the last books into 2 movies that can net alot more money than if they had only made 1 movie. For chrissakes the Hobbit is only 200 pages long and way shorter than the other LOTR books, but Peter Jackson is going to stretch that out into two 3 hour long THEATRICAL movies? Get real. This is about money and lots of it. Borders complete exploitation of art work.

As for Nero, I thought he was a great intro villain and you can't take him for anymore than that. He's the Darth Maul.
If you're going to do a trilogy (or perhaps a 4+ saga) you can't begin with a villain that's untoppable. The Enterprise crew was fresh out of the academy and so with that in mind Nero was a good villain for them to begin on.

I say Nero is a bad villain because he is the generic movie villain. His motives are weak and he's out to destroy everything because of no reason except that he's a bad guy. If he didn't have a ship that is from 150 years in the future he wouldn't be much of anything. He doesn't even display the cunning and strategic Romulan traits. He's simple enough that general audiences can digest him and identify him as the antagonist.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Bowl cuts and shoulder pads are traditional Romulan traits, not cunning and strategy!

I really liked Nero. His whole world dies. So he finds the guy responsible (two of him, in fact) and makes them watch while he wipes out their planet in retalliation. Then he tries to eradicate the governing body Spock (and Vulcan) answer to, to ensure the supposed betrayal of Romulus won't happen again. Sounds like a fine plan to me (although using Red Matter on the Hobus star shoud have been phase 1 of the plan, not left for "things to do after destroying the entire Federation")

 

[OneAngryRomulan]

I meant to say by marketing it to the masses it loses alot of the heart of Star Trek and becomes a generic summer scifi action movie. That makes it easier for general audience to digest, and pay for repeated viewings and not feel nerdy.

Pirates of the Caribbean was unique and special with it's first movie. But with it's popularity we keep seeing sequel after disappointing sequel. The Hollywood execs have $ signs in their eyes and are willing to run any franchise into the ground that'll pay out megamillions. Why do you think we've been seeing part 1 and back 2 of certain movies recently? Every Harry Potter movie has made $900+ million to a billion, every Twilight movie has made $400-700 million+, everyLOTR film has made $900+ to a billion. By dividing the last books into 2 movies that can net alot more money than if they had only made 1 movie. For chrissakes the Hobbit is only 200 pages long and way shorter than the other LOTR books, but Peter Jackson is going to stretch that out into two 3 hour long THEATRICAL movies? Get real. This is about money and lots of it. Borders complete exploitation of art work.

Hmm. I disagree that Star Trek '09 was that. It certainly had elements of that but I don't think `summer blockbuster` came before or over shadowed what I found to be great story telling. Independence Day was your typical sci-fi summer blockbuster aka total unapologetic garbage.

Part of what I loved about Star Trek '09 was it's reverence for who the Enterprise crew were, what they were capable of, what they had done in another timeline. So many scenes were designed to set the stage for great deeds to come - deeds we already know are going to follow.

The intro scene where they name Kirk as the father is sacrificing himself for the crew, Pike's challenge in the bar, elder Spock's encouragement, etc. It was like fate intended for them all to come together and that was tinkered with and it was correcting itself over the course of the film, culminating with Kirk taking the Captain's chair and the whole team taking out Nero and his ship.

Origin stories always have to be origin stories. That's why there's often the worst in a series while at the same time absolutely necessary. This is why i'm dreading the remake of Spiderman - another origin story! again!

But all in all I think Star Trek '09 did a great job at this while at the same time destroying the original time line (which is great) because it allowed it to be even more than an origin story. This movie did justice to the Enterprise crew. If the original actors have a soft spot for the characters they all created they should all be proud of how much justice this film did for all of them.

I say Nero is a bad villain because he is the generic movie villain. His motives are weak and he's out to destroy everything because of no reason except that he's a bad guy. If he didn't have a ship that is from 150 years in the future he wouldn't be much of anything. He doesn't even display the cunning and strategic Romulan traits. He's simple enough that general audiences can digest him and identify him as the antagonist.

I see your point. I suppose I have to agree. The smart move (the Romulan move) would have been to take his future super-ship to the Empire and allow them to use the technology to rule all of space while at the same time using the red matter to destroy the star that goes Super Nova long before it threatens his home world.

Instead he was just a wrecking ball.

But again, Nero is forgivable because he's an introduction villain. It's also to be assumed that everything he did will have huge aftershocks for the next movies, even if he was, ultimately, the intro chump change villain, and the worse parts of trilogies are made better once viewed in the whole of the entire story (kind of like how Return of the Sith somehow made EP1 slightly better than it was originally... (ok, bad example, EP1 is bad.)

If you feel that was you should watch Star Trek Of Gods and Men, made by Tim Russ. It was filmed in 2006. In it he has Vulcan destroyed. Alot of Star Trek 09 is borrowed ideas from successfull or previous Star Trek media

I'll check it out Thanks

 

[OneAngryRomulan]

Since we already have the traditional Star Trek canon, part of me is hoping they're really daring in this new time line.
Destroying the Vulcan home world is really significant. Something with that significant an impact could lead anywhere.

What if it the Vulcans go bat-crazy over it and emerge as the new villains? The new Neros? Ok, probably not, but you see my point. Anything is possible now.

Based on the fact that trilogies starting with origin stories always seem to take some seemingly minor reference from the first film and turn it into a massive story arch in the following ones, I think Nero wiping out all of those Klingons is going to materialize into something like a huge war. I doubt the Klingons will just give the Romulans a pass on that whether they're told he was from the future or not.

In any event, I think it's safe to say Khan is out and i'm happy for that. If you're going to blow the time line up let's get crazy. In fact, getting as crazy as possible (like having the Vulcans turn into baddies) would be a real homage to TOS (Mirror, Mirror, and the two Kirk episode, etc).

I hope they throw some caution into the wind and blow the Star Trek universe up in ways nobody would guess.

 

[Tosk]

It was fun but I'll be happier when Trek eventually makes its way back to TV.

[Cue cries of, "You'll be waiting a long time!"]

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Bowl cuts and shoulder pads are traditional Romulan traits, not cunning and strategy!

I really liked Nero. His whole world dies. So he finds the guy responsible (two of him, in fact) and makes them watch while he wipes out their planet in retalliation. Then he tries to eradicate the governing body Spock (and Vulcan) answer to, to ensure the supposed betrayal of Romulus won't happen again. Sounds like a fine plan to me (although using Red Matter on the Hobus star shoud have been phase 1 of the plan, not left for "things to do after destroying the entire Federation")

People like to complain that Nero's hatred toward the Federation made no sense. But come on, seriously. He wasn't a scientist, or genius, or strategist...and nobody ever said his intelligence was even a little above average. The guy was a miner. He lost everything and went bananas. Someone had to be blamed. Might as well be everyone else.

Oh, and see if I care about the lens flare.

NuTrek rocks. So does old Trek. Imho of course.

 

[M'Sharak]

Oh, and see if I care about the lens flare.

​

 

[C.E. Evans]

My eyes! My eyes!

 

[F. King Daniel]

*squints*

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It wasn't a reboot.

It was a good movie, and satisfied the needs of being a blockbuster movie while being as respectful as possible of current fans. Those who still feel slighted, well, so be it. They couldn't have been accommodated without sacrificing the movie's success and therefore endangering the franchise's future.

Anyone who wants to get things their way at that high a cost is not a true fan anyway. I wanted a DS9 movie, but you don't see me squalling about it.

Ah yeah Lucas is doing that with his tv series Star Wars Underworld.

No he isn't. That TV series will never happen.

PS, don't let anyone see that lens flare, next thing you know, we'll be getting ads that do that.

 

[FarStrider]

Oh, and see if I care about the lens flare.

​

In my best JJ Abrams voice: NICE FLA-AYRE!

 

[Trekkie2]

There isn't a Star Trek movie that I don't like and wouldn't watch again. There are scenes from the movies, like Pon Farr between Spock and Saavik (that was icky), the scene where Carol Marcus says something about cooking (that was stupid), any scene with Lursa and B'Etor in it (that's just not right), and the fact that it was Valeris, not Saavik, who was the conspirator. I wasn't real fond of the Kitty Kat in V. I have no problem with lens flare even though my eyes are sensitive to light.