What do you diehard TOS fans think of the new movie?

[number6]

By the same token, though, the "talky" stuff that JJ disdains so much is just as vital a part of Star Trek as locking phasers on target.

Does he "distain" it or was it just not right for this particular story and film?

In this interview, J.J. Abrams is talking about how as a kid he found Trek too talky and too intellectual:

Goodykoontz: Anything else to say about how you grew up a bigger fan of "Star Wars?"


Abrams: When I was a kid when I saw "Star Wars" it was incredibly impactful. I just thought it was like nothing I'd ever seen. Like for most people my generation, it was just this incredibly thrilling, exciting, fun, energetic, fast-paced adventure. "Star Trek" always felt talky. There was definitely a melodrama to it. But it was also mostly because of the resources, obviously, I think they didn't have, it was often a lot of discussion of adventure and less frequently the delivering that adventure. The pace was clearly, for that time, appropriate. But by the time I was old enough to appreciate movies it just felt slow to me, and maybe because of all the debate it felt to me a little too intellectual, which I know for fans of "Trek" is probably a horrible thing to hear, the director of the new movie thought the original show was too intellectual. But as a kid that's how I felt.


Goodykoontz: But you came around?


Abrams: As an adult now, I appreciate it. Now it makes sense, why so many of my smart friends like "Star Trek" and I didn't get it as much as they did. But for me, the visceral experience, the feeling, the emotional experience, is always more critical than the intellectual one. And that is, again, my shortcoming - one of my many shortcomings - but it's true.


Source: http://www.clarionledger.com/articl...J.+Abrams+says+movie+had+to+feel+real++matter

However, whenever Abrams has mentioned Trek being talky, I've never taken at as disdain but rather as personal preference to a more, as he says, visceral and emotional experience. And, honestly, even Trekkies like us have talked about how Trek can pontificate a little too much.

That was my problem with TNG, and it seems to be a problem with most TOS fans who dislike the modern Trek shows: Too much technobabble.

This film actually has a good deal of technobabble, except that it serves a purpose in the same way that it served a purpose when TOS used technobabble.

The way the characters "speak" in this film is more in the spirit of the original show than anything from the Trek camp in quite some time.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I wonder if he means TOS or Trek in general. As a young kid--before the age of 9 or 10--I thought TOS was talky and prefered Star Wars. Oddly enough, it was the uber-talky and uber-boring (but in a good way--Mark Lenard said much the same thing) TMP that made me a believer.

 

[Kagan]

May go back to see it tomorrow at a matinee price...but I'm really planning to see UP...so a second trip to the action-adventure may not be happening.

I didn't go back to see the new movie again. I went to see UP in 3D.
It is a much better action-adventure.

Sorry, I just don't care for the new movie. I sat through it. Went into the theater with an open mind, but there was just too much acid reflux for me to handle. Honestly, I could sit through the last three seasons of Voyager before watching the movie again. That sounds bad, but I'm just being honest. Maybe it's time to bring back Berman & Braga

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Maybe it's time to bring back Berman & Braga

No. The studio much prefers having successful Trek that's widely watched and that makes money for them.

 

[Kagan]

Maybe it's time to bring back Berman & Braga

No. The studio much prefers having successful Trek that's widely watched and that makes money for them.

Nothing like turning to Star Trek to jumpstart the economy...

 

[Gary7]

I liked it. I didn't expect to. I went in with TBBS opinions loaded in my head, but tried to clear them out... let it be a blank slate.


It's a great movie. Of course, it had its share of problems, but it really was a fascinating take on the "temporal incursion" theme we saw bashed to death in so many movies and episodes. It works. There were some actors who I didn't really warm up to, but I have to say that Zachary and Chris did very good work. You could see traces of original character personalities. Of course, these are younger versions of them, and that was managed quite well too. Urban pulled off a believable McCoy. Scotty? Eh... mixed feelings. Quinto was a better Spock than Pine was a Kirk... but they both worked well together. I had a blast watching it!

TOS was my first "Trek" series. And it always will be. Call it diehard... and yeah, the material is dated, in some cases painfully so. The remasterings with updated CGI are a nice touch, though. But it's nice to have a fresh new look at it all.

Do I feel my memory of TOS violated by this new movie? No. This movie was good fun. I am looking forward to a sequel where there will be more character development (hopefully).

 

[Cakes488]

I liked it. I didn't expect to. I went in with TBBS opinions loaded in my head, but tried to clear them out... let it be a blank slate.


It's a great movie. Of course, it had its share of problems, but it really was a fascinating take on the "temporal incursion" theme we saw bashed to death in so many movies and episodes. It works. There were some actors who I didn't really warm up to, but I have to say that Zachary and Chris did very good work. You could see traces of original character personalities. Of course, these are younger versions of them, and that was managed quite well too. Urban pulled off a believable McCoy. Scotty? Eh... mixed feelings. Quinto was a better Spock than Pine was a Kirk... but they both worked well together. I had a blast watching it!

TOS was my first "Trek" series. And it always will be. Call it diehard... and yeah, the material is dated, in some cases painfully so. The remasterings with updated CGI are a nice touch, though. But it's nice to have a fresh new look at it all.

Do I feel my memory of TOS violated by this new movie? No. This movie was good fun. I am looking forward to a sequel where there will be more character development (hopefully).

Well hello there Gary, I don't want to be too forward so let me know if I should address you as Mr. 7. But the material is dated....do you mean the stories or the effects in TOS?

 

[Praetor]

For my money, a dose of both. But I'll let Gary7 speak for himself.

 

[Jeri]

Gary, great to hear you got to the movie and that you liked it.

 

[Warped9]

TOS has always been like a good friend to me, including all facets good and ill. Now someone comes along and expects me to accept this substitute that claims to be just as good.

Uh...no.

My friend has been with me for years and who he is includes all facets of his character even those I like less than those I like most. By excising facets of that character I cherish, admire and respect and emphasing the weaker aspects they have not created a suitable substitute for my friend.

Good relationships are based on the good outweighing the bad. For me TOS, and good Star Trek in general, was a balancing of elements that complimented each other. Neglecting some of the better aspects for sake of an adrenalin rush convinces me that this JJ-verse cannot ever be a good friend to me, because he shows himself to be shallow and flighty.

TOS was too talky for Abrams' taste? Too fucking bad for him. That's part of what made it good. He ignores that facet to the film's detriment. For me it simply shows that he thought himself smarter than TOS' creators only to show he couldn't even stand in the same room as them.

Previous creators have tried to build on what came before. Abrams was content to throw subtance away in favour of mindlessness.

He shouldn't be praised for it.

 

[Forbin]

Previous creators have tried to build on what came before. Abrams was content to throw subtance away in favour of mindlessness.

He shouldn't be praised for it.

That's an interesting and apt analogy! Others (from official productions to novels to fanfic) built on the continuity. Abrams decided the only way to procede was to tear it down and build something new on the same lot. Hell, he even destroyed two whole planets - worlds of possibilities - in the process!

Kinda like tearing down a museum dedicated to philosophy and humanity, and putting up a video arcade.

 

[M.Robison]

I totally agree with all of those opinions. I am 32 and grew up with trek, from the TOS reruns as a kid to sitting up in my room fibbing to my mother that I was doing homework just to watch the premier of TNG.

Anytime I am asked about my thoughts of the new movie, I cant speak for trek fans as a whole group, but for me, I love Star Trek in its entirety for what it stared out as and what it is today. One mans vision of a better world.

I have complete dvd sets for everything produced from the movies to the tv shows TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT. To me each series and movie have high and low points, and when I watch them, I grab my Nitpickers Guide and tear them up constantly, but in the end I love all of it regardless.

But I saw the new movie because: one it was trek and I chose to see it because it was "Star Trek", but I also knew that it was being done by Abrams, and you kinda know what to expect with him when you see his movies.

I liked the movie because it had the tech stuff ST is famous for, the characters we know so well (albeit with a new cast) and familiar themes. Yes Abrams movie is a "Reboot", and in his words for many reasons, fresh ideas, to capture a new audience ect. But after all is said and done, I will probably add the dvd to the collection when it comes out, but in the end I almost feel as disappointed as I did when I saw ST,V:TFF.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Previous creators have tried to build on what came before. Abrams was content to throw subtance away in favour of mindlessness.

He shouldn't be praised for it.

That's an interesting and apt analogy! Others (from official productions to novels to fanfic) built on the continuity. Abrams decided the only way to procede was to tear it down and build something new on the same lot. Hell, he even destroyed two whole planets - worlds of possibilities - in the process!

Kinda like tearing down a museum dedicated to philosophy and humanity, and putting up a video arcade.

Nah, the museum is still there. But there's a new one just down the street. Its bit more Modern but contains some familer pieces.

 

[Neopeius]

Based on what Abrams said, I wonder if the question is "What did you diehard fans of Star Wars think of nuTrek?"

I really didn't like the Star Wars franchise, not even the first movie. So perhaps it's no surprise I didn't care for nuTrek either.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Based on what Abrams said, I wonder if the question is "What did you diehard fans of Star Wars think of nuTrek?"

I really didn't like the Star Wars franchise, not even the first movie. So perhaps it's no surprise I didn't care for nuTrek either.

It was better than the three prequels and two of the original trilogy.

 

[cooleddie74]

Based on what Abrams said, I wonder if the question is "What did you diehard fans of Star Wars think of nuTrek?"

I really didn't like the Star Wars franchise, not even the first movie. So perhaps it's no surprise I didn't care for nuTrek either.

It was better than the three prequels and two of the original trilogy.

I'll say I liked Abrams' TREK more than Episodes I and II. Easily. Not even close! But SITH has its creepy, emotional charms and the classic trilogy still kicks ass...even though the Ewoks muck up too much of the final movie.

 

[Ronald Held]

Warped9, do you you think the "talkiness" of TOS will or will not appeal to modern non-Trek audience goers?

 

[T'Bonz]

Well, I started out with TOS. Then TNG came along. I remember some fans bitching and moaning about it, but I said, "Hey, it's not Kirk and Spock, but I'll give it a chance." And I wasn't sorry. It wasn't my Trek, but it was still good Trek.

Over time, the same process happened with the other series and movies. Oh, some characters I liked, some I didn't. Some story elements blew, some were great. But even though they were all "different" Trek, there was good in them.

I still have my first love for original Trek (and now Deep Space Nine.) Nothing would have been lost had I never liked any of the sequels. I would still have original Trek.

So it's win-win for the fans. If you liked nuTrek, you got lots more. If not, well hell, you can ignore it.

I don't like some of the events in the new movie. But at the end of the movie, I was hungry for more. I connected with the new guys. They're not my Kirk and Spock, but I can never get new eps with them again. The new actors did a good job portraying Kirk and Spock (Spock more than Kirk. nuKirk is a bit annoying yet,) and I look forward to further adventures.

If I ever don't like a movie, I can always pretend it doesn't exist (like I do with individual episodes like "Cloud Minders" or "Threshold" or some of the gawdawful early TNG eps.) There is no harm done and just because there is new Trek, that doesn't take away from old Trek.

I just don't get why people get so upset over it.

 

[trevanian]

Previous creators have tried to build on what came before. Abrams was content to throw subtance away in favour of mindlessness.

He shouldn't be praised for it.

That's an interesting and apt analogy! Others (from official productions to novels to fanfic) built on the continuity. Abrams decided the only way to procede was to tear it down and build something new on the same lot. Hell, he even destroyed two whole planets - worlds of possibilities - in the process!

Kinda like tearing down a museum dedicated to philosophy and humanity, and putting up a video arcade.

I'm remembering Ellison talking about what John Byrne did with SUPERMAN, starting over with #1 and insisting there was no prior SUPERMAN, and how when somebody else messed with THE SHADOW, they completely trashed it and killed many characters.

I wonder how those many of those changes 'stuck' for the duration, and if the series' benefitted in the long run from these 'new directions.'

(then again, I love what they've done with BATMAN in the Nolan films, which are based in part on a restart of that from the 80s, I think. But BATMAN had NEVER really spoke to me before the Nolans, and for me, was a lesser and kinda unimportant thing, whereas now it is practically part of my thought process. Can the Abrams thing be considered significant in a creative way like the Nolan, which I think is going to inspire some serious film criticism, or just in the gimmicky tear-it-all-down-but-blow-lotsa-stuff-up way?)

 

[Nerys Myk]

Previous creators have tried to build on what came before. Abrams was content to throw subtance away in favour of mindlessness.

He shouldn't be praised for it.

That's an interesting and apt analogy! Others (from official productions to novels to fanfic) built on the continuity. Abrams decided the only way to procede was to tear it down and build something new on the same lot. Hell, he even destroyed two whole planets - worlds of possibilities - in the process!

Kinda like tearing down a museum dedicated to philosophy and humanity, and putting up a video arcade.

I'm remembering Ellison talking about what John Byrne did with SUPERMAN, starting over with #1 and insisting there was no prior SUPERMAN, and how when somebody else messed with THE SHADOW, they completely trashed it and killed many characters.

I wonder how those many of those changes 'stuck' for the duration, and if the series' benefitted in the long run from these 'new directions.'

(then again, I love what they've done with BATMAN in the Nolan films, which are based in part on a restart of that from the 80s, I think. But BATMAN had NEVER really spoke to me before the Nolans, and for me, was a lesser and kinda unimportant thing, whereas now it is practically part of my thought process. Can the Abrams thing be considered significant in a creative way like the Nolan, which I think is going to inspire some serious film criticism, or just in the gimmicky tear-it-all-down-but-blow-lotsa-stuff-up way?)

Byrne's Superman lasted for about 20 years and bits and pieces are still part of the current continuity.