To Accept or Not to Accept

[BillJ]

I was against this movie for the longest time, then a realization set in: Even if they were to follow the 'current' timeline it wouldn't feel right.

Attitudes and sensibilities have changed so much over forty plus years, as well as our understanding of the universe we live in. Even if they paid strict attention to what has come before... Taursus IV, the Farragut, Gary Mitchell and the rest, it still wouldn't feel right.

A universe with no women in command. Short, short, short mini-skirts (oh how I love them though!!!). McCoy's subtle racism. Laughing as we go off into the sunset with a couple of red-shirts dead.

Could you imagine this version of Uhura in the face of adversity stating "Captain, I'm scared..." or screaming when Kirk disappears off of the bridge? Could you watch the new movie and then seemlessly go into "Where No Man Has Gone Before"?. And I'm not talking about the look of the ship and sets... or maybe I am to a degree.

I still love Star Trek, have all three seasons of it on my bookcase and usually watch at least an episode a week. But I'm starting to understand the reasoning behind some of the choices made and hope they turn out well.

 

[Amaris]

I was against this movie for the longest time, then a realization set in: Even if they were to follow the 'current' timeline it wouldn't feel right.

Attitudes and sensibilities have changed so much over forty plus years, as well as our understanding of the universe we live in. Even if they paid strict attention to what has come before... Taursus IV, the Farragut, Gary Mitchell and the rest, it still wouldn't feel right.

A universe with no women in command. Short, short, short mini-skirts (oh how I love them though!!!). McCoy's subtle racism. Laughing as we go off into the sunset with a couple of red-shirts dead.

Could you imagine this version of Uhura in the face of adversity stating "Captain, I'm scared..." or screaming when Kirk disappears off of the bridge? Could you watch the new movie and then seemlessly go into "Where No Man Has Gone Before"?. And I'm not talking about the look of the ship and sets... or maybe I am to a degree.

I still love Star Trek, have all three seasons of it on my bookcase and usually watch at least an episode a week. But I'm starting to understand the reasoning behind some of the choices made and hope they turn out well.

You know, I never really saw McCoy's jabs at Spock to be racism. McCoy was a curmudgeon through and through. Great doctor, but a grouch. Spock was McCoy's foil. McCoy had this level of emotional passion on the outside, while Spock had it on the inside. It balanced out.

What I saw from McCoy was what one does to a friend. Subtle jabs here and there, picking, wink/nod, things like that, but they both had the highest level of respect for one another, and considered one another family.

That being said, I agree with what you're saying about the dynamics of the show then and now. I love the original series, it is still my favorite of all the Trek incarnations. I can sit back with a glass of tea and throw a DVD into the player and watch old friends have their adventures all over again and never grow tired of it. I am excited about this new movie, because I think they're going to take that old dynamic and make it new again, for a new audience, and I'm glad of that. I want to see that again, in the eyes of new fans, and potential fans, this powerful connection they all have.

I always felt that Star Trek dealt with space as a metaphor for the human heart and the human condition. I hope to see those strains played again.

J.

 

[BillJ]

I was against this movie for the longest time, then a realization set in: Even if they were to follow the 'current' timeline it wouldn't feel right.

Attitudes and sensibilities have changed so much over forty plus years, as well as our understanding of the universe we live in. Even if they paid strict attention to what has come before... Taursus IV, the Farragut, Gary Mitchell and the rest, it still wouldn't feel right.

A universe with no women in command. Short, short, short mini-skirts (oh how I love them though!!!). McCoy's subtle racism. Laughing as we go off into the sunset with a couple of red-shirts dead.

Could you imagine this version of Uhura in the face of adversity stating "Captain, I'm scared..." or screaming when Kirk disappears off of the bridge? Could you watch the new movie and then seemlessly go into "Where No Man Has Gone Before"?. And I'm not talking about the look of the ship and sets... or maybe I am to a degree.

I still love Star Trek, have all three seasons of it on my bookcase and usually watch at least an episode a week. But I'm starting to understand the reasoning behind some of the choices made and hope they turn out well.

You know, I never really saw McCoy's jabs at Spock to be racism. McCoy was a curmudgeon through and through. Great doctor, but a grouch. Spock was McCoy's foil. McCoy had this level of emotional passion on the outside, while Spock had it on the inside. It balanced out.

What I saw from McCoy was what one does to a friend. Subtle jabs here and there, picking, wink/nod, things like that, but they both had the highest level of respect for one another, and considered one another family.

That being said, I agree with what you're saying about the dynamics of the show then and now. I love the original series, it is still my favorite of all the Trek incarnations. I can sit back with a glass of tea and throw a DVD into the player and watch old friends have their adventures all over again and never grow tired of it. I am excited about this new movie, because I think they're going to take that old dynamic and make it new again, for a new audience, and I'm glad of that. I want to see that again, in the eyes of new fans, and potential fans, this powerful connection they all have.

I always felt that Star Trek dealt with space as a metaphor for the human heart and the human condition. I hope to see those strains played again.

J.

I agree about McCoy and Spock. Though I have known a few people who thought McCoy was a racist.

 

[3D Master]

just because it wasnt mentioned on screen dosnt mean the vulcans or others within the federation hadnt investigated a similar star drive .
heck maybe they found out it would attract the alien beasties and this is why they didnt go along with it.

Whether or not they did, matters not. The Romulans are still the masters of the singularity because they actually use it actively continuously for decades. The people who it most, who have the most experience, the people who have faced and dealt with unforseen problems are the Romulans, not the Vulcans/Federation. Thus the people who know how to work with singularities are the Romulans. Hence, the ones who would come up with the best way to generate any necessary black hole, are the Romulans. The comics however, treat it as if the Romulans wouldn't know a singularity if it sucked up their asses.

I was against this movie for the longest time, then a realization set in: Even if they were to follow the 'current' timeline it wouldn't feel right.

Attitudes and sensibilities have changed so much over forty plus years, as well as our understanding of the universe we live in. Even if they paid strict attention to what has come before... Taursus IV, the Farragut, Gary Mitchell and the rest, it still wouldn't feel right.

A universe with no women in command. Short, short, short mini-skirts (oh how I love them though!!!).

Uh... the new movie has short short mini-skirts for the women, and the actress that plays Uhura has expressed desire they were even shorter!

McCoy's subtle racism.

As opposed to Spock's unsubtle racism, who spends nearly every episode deriding the barbarism that is humanity while Vulcans are oh so precious and sweet? Especially considering the guy is half human?

They were friends who liked jabbing each other, there was nothing racist about it. It's that with our political correct bullshit, people are conditioned to look for the most nastiest interpretation of something and then deride them for not being politically correct enough, or accuse them of outright racism.

 

[The Academic]

I love Star Trek because it has great stories and great fantasy [...]

My sentiments exactly...

 

[Australis]

M'Sharak said:

Basically, as of 2005, CBS owns television Star Trek and Paramount owns movie Star Trek; they're effectively two separate entities.

Really? THat's a terrible idea. In the tug o' war between studios, they won't be able to have the same crews in the TV series that is in the movies.

Unless they stick to the movies being what they are now, as of 2009, and do the same thing with TNG on the TV, reboot/reimagine Picard & Co.

Still, I think this could all go... wrong.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Honest to God, I just wish the people behind this movie would have just said straight out, from the very beginning, that this is a reboot. That it's a reimagining of the concept from its beginings, screw the decades of continuity, books, comics, fanfic and fan made films. Then, there would be no arguments of "is this fact right or what about this event?" crap. People would either watch it hoping for some cool new take on the franchise, or not watch it because it's not part of the continuity.

If you must have a time travel reason to smooth it over, fine: Spock and/or Nero goes back in time and reboots Star Trek. Everything is gone, although much of Enterprise remains (except for the Borg influenced stuff).

Now, with that in mind, accept that all of these character who were different ages are now all part of the same Academy Class and all meet on the Enterprise long before they were all assigned there.

We're good now.

 

[Michael]

Honest to God, I just wish the people behind this movie would have just said straight out, from the very beginning, that this is a reboot. That it's a reimagining of the concept from its beginings, screw the decades of continuity, books, comics, fanfic and fan made films. Then, there would be no arguments of "is this fact right or what about this event?" crap. People would either watch it hoping for some cool new take on the franchise, or not watch it because it's not part of the continuity.

Honestly, I don't think it would be any different.

Now, with that in mind, accept that all of these character who were different ages are now all part of the same Academy Class and all meet on the Enterprise long before they were all assigned there.

You don't know how any of that will work out in the actual movie. Why don't we just wait and see?

 

[trevanian]

Honest to God, I just wish the people behind this movie would have just said straight out, from the very beginning, that this is a reboot. That it's a reimagining of the concept from its beginings, screw the decades of continuity, books, comics, fanfic and fan made films. Then, there would be no arguments of "is this fact right or what about this event?" crap. People would either watch it hoping for some cool new take on the franchise, or not watch it because it's not part of the continuity.

Honestly, I don't think it would be any different.

It'd have cut down on tons of these arguments about VALIDITY, and the arguments would have been more about acceptability and taste. If BATMAN BEGINS had tried to acknowledge any of the Burton/Schumacher flicks, it would have been wasting valuable screentime and doing nothing to help itself; instead it stood on its own and delivered (in my mind, at about ten thousand times better than any BATflick ever did before) ...

To address something apparently near and dear to you, having this new trek stand alone would be clear-cut even w/o the time travel story just by showing the monstrosity of the ship being built on the ground. For me, that alone is enough to indicate that no matter how well Abrams 'gets' the characters (and I don't see that he will get them at all, since he seems hellbent on cramming them into some played-out mythical structure that worked for some in SW and worked for halfwits in TOP GUN), this isn't going to be a valid take on STAR TREK.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Honest to God, I just wish the people behind this movie would have just said straight out, from the very beginning, that this is a reboot. That it's a reimagining of the concept from its beginings, screw the decades of continuity, books, comics, fanfic and fan made films. Then, there would be no arguments of "is this fact right or what about this event?" crap. People would either watch it hoping for some cool new take on the franchise, or not watch it because it's not part of the continuity.

Honestly, I don't think it would be any different.

Of course it wouldn't. The same suspects would be doing the same bitching and screaming.

 

[Eddie Roth]

Honest to God, I just wish the people behind this movie would have just said straight out, from the very beginning, that this is a reboot. That it's a reimagining of the concept from its beginings, screw the decades of continuity, books, comics, fanfic and fan made films. Then, there would be no arguments of "is this fact right or what about this event?" crap. People would either watch it hoping for some cool new take on the franchise, or not watch it because it's not part of the continuity.

I was just going to say the same thing. Not to say that it would've been better, cause we still don't know anything about the film until we've seen it, but this particular discussion here wouldn't exist.

 

[The Academic]

All these argments based comparisons between Star Trek on the one side and the Superman, Batman (et al.) movies on the other lose some of their punch when you consider that time travel and parallel universes are commonplace in Star Trek, but not in the other franchises.

P.S.
I'm aware of DC Comics' various Elseworlds concepts. I'm talking solely about the different superhero movie incarnations.

 

[Michael]

Honestly, I don't think it would be any different.

It'd have cut down on tons of these arguments about VALIDITY, and the arguments would have been more about acceptability and taste.

I still think we would have more or less the same discussions. People would still want it to be part of the original canon.

For me, that alone is enough to indicate that no matter how well Abrams 'gets' the characters [...], this isn't going to be a valid take on STAR TREK.

A valid take on Star Trek? It's produced by Paramount and it has the name Star Trek. It doesn't need more to be valid.

 

[ST-One]

For me, that alone is enough to indicate that no matter how well Abrams 'gets' the characters [...], this isn't going to be a valid take on STAR TREK.

So, no matter how good the direction, the acting and no matter how close the characterization to the original characters, this isn't Trek to you?

What would be a 'valid' take on Trek?

 

[Carpe Occasio]

I think Paramount is taking Star Trek to a new audience, and the hell with pure canon, because traditional Star Trek fans have buried the franchise. We often blame it on Rick Berman because of Nemesis and Enterprise, but it's really the traditional fans. The "fans" hated Nemesis and the "fans" didn't watch Enterprise. Enterprise really fueled the canon complaints and I think Paramount is fed up. They were going to mothball Star Trek, but now they've decided to rework/retool/reboot it and try for a whole new audience. Traditional Star Trek fans haven't been so willing to adapt and all the infeuding about canon has put us on the outside looking in. Paramount (and JJ) have said the hell with the not-so-loyal-anymore-fans and are moving ahead with a whole new Star Trek universe. I think we "fans" have become our own worst enemy.

But I could be wrong...

 

[trevanian]

Honestly, I don't think it would be any different.

It'd have cut down on tons of these arguments about VALIDITY, and the arguments would have been more about acceptability and taste.

I still think we would have more or less the same discussions. People would still want it to be part of the original canon.

For me, that alone is enough to indicate that no matter how well Abrams 'gets' the characters [...], this isn't going to be a valid take on STAR TREK.

A valid take on Star Trek? It's produced by Paramount and it has the name Star Trek. It doesn't need more to be valid.

I said, 'for me.' How clear does it have to be this is an opinion? The fact that a company owns something and puts it out there doesn't make it 'right' -- just that it is legal.

 

[trevanian]

For me, that alone is enough to indicate that no matter how well Abrams 'gets' the characters [...], this isn't going to be a valid take on STAR TREK.

So, no matter how good the direction, the acting and no matter how close the characterization to the original characters, this isn't Trek to you?

What would be a 'valid' take on Trek?

Something else (which has probably been covered in my past posts ... you've responded to or commented on most of them in recent months, so you can probably come up with an answer without my having to reiterate yet again.)

In short ... something that doesn't actually make me roll my eyes when I see their prime selling image is a dumbass spin on an offensively stupid flick like TOP GUN.

 

[ST-One]

In short ... something that doesn't actually make me roll my eyes when I see their prime selling image is a dumbass spin on an offensively stupid flick like TOP GUN.

I have never seen that film... so what prime selling image do you mean?

 

[trevanian]

In short ... something that doesn't actually make me roll my eyes when I see their prime selling image is a dumbass spin on an offensively stupid flick like TOP GUN.

I have never seen that film... so what prime selling image do you mean?

It has been referenced in about a zillion threads here, but I'm talking about something that is even in the ad for TG, the 'hero' on his bike watching the jets, which is clearly echoed with the 'build the ship in a barn' aspect of trek.

 

[Borgminister]

You know, I never really saw McCoy's jabs at Spock to be racism. McCoy was a curmudgeon through and through.

He was the Don Rickles of the Enterprise...