Another NO vote. I've been watching Trek since 1973 and I've seen every iteration on screen (big and small) and I thoroughly enjoyed the new movie. It wasn't perfect, but it was perfectly enjoyable. Care to make any other sweeping generalizations with little to no foundations, Tentacle?
Uh... what's a conor stone? Is that something like the Blarney Stone?
Ok, I just double checked. In the "Countdown" prequel comic, after the Jellyfish and Narada disappear into the anomaly, the Enterprise-E (Picard, Data and all) are still there trying to find them. That means nothing got erased. The "Prime" universe still exists. This universe is essentially like the "Mirror" universe. It's running "along side" the "Prime" universe we've always known. To borrow an analogy from another thread, the two universes are on the same cable service, they're just running on different channels.
Even classic Trek had APOTA - which was just for fun, and Spock's Brain. Not every episode had a huge thematic issue. And I think there are enough nuggets about revenge to count this as more substantive than either of those episodes. Besides which, brains did beat brawn here - and some lessons were learned.
Ah. My thesis that the TNG series and movies up until Roddenberry's death are more telling of how he wanted Star Trek to be. In TOS he had to change his original idea (the original pilot was too cerebral) to the more action oriented TOS with Kirk. Once that series ended and the movies began, then later with TNG, we get back to that cerebral Trek that Roddenberry originally wanted. Those Trek movies and episodes are riddled with moralizing and brains over brawn. That's the stuff I like best. To me, that is the heart of Trek. That's the only important part that I need to see continued for me to be a content fan. This film didn't deliver that for me.
For the purposes of the story I agree with you.
His disposable comment is BS anyhow, that is unless he's never watch more than a couple hours of TNG onwards.
I cannot agree more and everytime I have expressed here this view I have been mocked. Interestingly, when I brought this up on some other boards more people agreed with me than here.Even classic Trek had APOTA - which was just for fun, and Spock's Brain. Not every episode had a huge thematic issue. And I think there are enough nuggets about revenge to count this as more substantive than either of those episodes. Besides which, brains did beat brawn here - and some lessons were learned.
Ah. My thesis that the TNG series and movies up until Roddenberry's death are more telling of how he wanted Star Trek to be. In TOS he had to change his original idea (the original pilot was too cerebral) to the more action oriented TOS with Kirk. Once that series ended and the movies began, then later with TNG, we get back to that cerebral Trek that Roddenberry originally wanted. Those Trek movies and episodes are riddled with moralizing and brains over brawn. That's the stuff I like best. To me, that is the heart of Trek. That's the only important part that I need to see continued for me to be a content fan. This film didn't deliver that for me.
Well, I'm sorry but the writer of that totally misunderstands the point of fans in his condescending put down. Why am I a fan of Star Trek? Simple, because there were a combination of elements to it that drew me to like it for 30 years. With that in mind aren't I obviously going to want to see elements of those things I was attracted to originally in any new Trek in order for me to still be a fan? What in effect the articles says is that I am wrong to like something that way I do and I have to just suck up whatever comes along because critics and non fans tell me its cool to do so. Let me give you an example. I grew up being a fan of the Christopher Reeve Superman movies. Now, Smallville has been very successful but I cannot bring myself to watch it because for me Superman actually being Superman, wearing the suit, flying et al are key ingredients of the things that drew me to like the Reeve films. Without that the appeal to me is reduced. Similarly I liked the rich universe and, more importantly, the cerebral quality of many of the Treks that came to pass. I can get past a reboot, but not if it lacks the cerebral quality for me so, like Smallville, it cannot hold my interest as much as the previous Treks. I can't help the type of things that originally drew me to the franchise and I don't see why I need to apologise for that or need to "chill out". I am perfetcly chilled out and my life is certainly not over like you would believe from some of the other fans with criticisms. I am just a little sad that people like this gentleman fail to understand why some of us like the show in the first place and why we want to still see elements of that.
No. All I see is that you have mentioned several character development aspects and random plot points. I mean what is the cerebral element to Amanda's death? To warn us not to stand to close to a cliff when a madman is attacking you?
It is Star Trek because the studio owns the property and the characters and has decided to use them. Ergo it is there right to declare it Star Trek. But, just as I thought that most of Voyager was dumb therefore lack the elements I liked, it was nonetheless put out as Star Trek.
You use this for Wolverine but can just as easily be attached to Abrams Trek.
