And Bea Arthur as Guinan.
Where are we right now??
- Thread starter Captain_Nick
- Start date
- Status
The scene where the Pakleds sing off-key and with the wrong lyrics about "Life Day" brought tears to my eyes. They were looking for things that make us cry? They nailed it. Beautiful. Beautiful stuff. A shame Paramount burned the master copy after it aired.
No, it's more like Sherlock Holmes being played by Basil Rathbone in mostly totally non-canonical stories, then Sherlock Holmes being played by Jeremy Brett in amazing adaptations of the original stories, then Sherlock Holmes being played by Robert Downey Jr. in a steampunk setting, then Sherlock Holmes being played by Benedict Cumberbatch in the 21st Century. They are ALL Sherlock Holmes.
Don't forget Peter Cushing as Holmes in the Hammer Films version!
Or the umpteen novels and comic books in which Holmes meets Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera, Jack the Ripper, Fu Manchu, H. G. Wells' Martians, or Sigmund Freud!
(Hello, Nicholas Meyer!)
Hey, crazy thought: do you think people in the 24th century object when somebody reboots a classic holodeck program?
"A new version of Dixon Hill? That's sacrilege!"
Last edited:
Spot-on analysis. And what the haters seem to forget is that this is still technically the same STAR TREK universe of 1966-2005...it's just been altered somewhat by the actions of a time traveling Romulan from the Picard era. The movie even acknowledges the Prime timeline and that the Enterprise crew is living in an altered reality as a result of the Narada's attack on the USS Kelvin in 2233. Spock Prime even goes so far as to mention the Shatner Kirk and his father George having lived long enough to see him become captain of the TOS Enterprise. It's all canon, unlike the Sherlock Holmes incarnations which exist in their own unique realities completely separate from one another and connected only in name and the most basic details. TREK 2009 is still an integral part of the whole, unified Roddenberry universe dating back to "The Cage."
But do most of us want eighties-era and nineties-era television in the 21st Century? Or do we want something a little more modern, a little more in tune with what's going on now in entertainment? Which is, in general, often superior to stuff from the eighties and nineties (though not always).
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Over?
I know. I'm scratching my head over that one, too.
I'm not really sure what to say. Diff'rent strokes I suppose.
The EMH deeply resented finding out he had been rebooted!
The new, rebooted versions of the Flotter holoprograms must have driven some 24th century kids and holostory purists positively insane. And I don't even wanna think about all the times Reg Barclay scrapped his creepy programs and started again from scratch. 
The Phantom Flotter earned the derision of many but doll sales were through the roof!
Last edited:
"E=cooleddie74;6032611]I've never visited this thread until right now. Somebody clued me into a little of what's been going on, though. Sheeeesh, people...this thing is on the verge of going over the cliff and into the Grand Canyon. What a damn mess. Lemme see if anything I say helps...
I don't think the timeline change/reboot was cynical. TREK simply needed fresh blood and a fresh approach after almost thirty straight years of new TV episodes and movies ranging from TMP all the way to "TATV." The movie preserves the original timeline we've all grown to love and follow while creating a new temporal events sequence wholly independent of the Prime universe. Our beloved TREK of 1966-2005 still exists, we just no longer see it because of Nero's actions and creation of a brand new reality. The change in the timeline allows for new actors to play the familiar characters, new ship designs, new uniforms and a new chain of events that doesn't have to follow the exact pattern of the Prime timeline. TREK is preserved, it's just been given a glossy new coat of wax for a newer generation of fans and filmgoers. It is still TREK, and it is not more cynical. After all, the heroes win, Earth and mankind are saved, Kirk gets to be captain of the Enterprise 7 years earlier than he did in the Prime reality and the spirit of adventure and exploration are preserved.
(*Whew*)
There. Better?[/QUOTE]
And perhaps after Abrams does his run on Star Trek the next guy in charge decides to go back to the old universe and makes a sequel to the TNG era set in the 27th century or whatever. Then fans of ST 2009 can complain about the lack of soul, heart or talk of cynicism. Which I find lame. it's all Star Trek. And the Abrams Trek had loads of heart and soul. Nothing cynical about it.
I don't think the timeline change/reboot was cynical. TREK simply needed fresh blood and a fresh approach after almost thirty straight years of new TV episodes and movies ranging from TMP all the way to "TATV." The movie preserves the original timeline we've all grown to love and follow while creating a new temporal events sequence wholly independent of the Prime universe. Our beloved TREK of 1966-2005 still exists, we just no longer see it because of Nero's actions and creation of a brand new reality. The change in the timeline allows for new actors to play the familiar characters, new ship designs, new uniforms and a new chain of events that doesn't have to follow the exact pattern of the Prime timeline. TREK is preserved, it's just been given a glossy new coat of wax for a newer generation of fans and filmgoers. It is still TREK, and it is not more cynical. After all, the heroes win, Earth and mankind are saved, Kirk gets to be captain of the Enterprise 7 years earlier than he did in the Prime reality and the spirit of adventure and exploration are preserved.
(*Whew*)
There. Better?[/QUOTE]
And perhaps after Abrams does his run on Star Trek the next guy in charge decides to go back to the old universe and makes a sequel to the TNG era set in the 27th century or whatever. Then fans of ST 2009 can complain about the lack of soul, heart or talk of cynicism. Which I find lame. it's all Star Trek. And the Abrams Trek had loads of heart and soul. Nothing cynical about it.
Damn, and here I was thinking I had joined a Star Trek board where other Trekkies like me love to endlessly whine and bitch about Trek minutiae.
I must have taken a wrong turn somewehere.
All of my points remain valid. This reboot, just like the Bond/Spiderman reboot was unnecessary and a cynical move by a studio that wanted the easiest way out of a jam. "Let's just start over". I don't respect that at all.
I've wanted to see new stories about Kirk and Spock and the rest of the TOS crew for a very long time. Thus, IMO, it was very necessary.
New Kirk and Spock stories > new Captain Generic in the 25th century stories.
I honestly feel like it's a privilege to have new Kirk and Spock after all these years. And it's not like seeing them again is going to mean we never see Captain Generic some day either. You nailed it.
And to anyone who would presume to tell me they are not Kirk and Spock, enjoy your reality because I'm sure as hell enjoying mine.
Kirk and Spock have been done for goodness sake. That's what happens, actors get old and the stories end. Shatner was Kirk, Nimoy was Spock. Pretending that these new actors are representing the old characters is like some mass delusion.
They are representing the old characters.
You are familiar with the concept of plays, yes?
Sean Connery is James Bond, and only him. All the others are just some mass delusion. The new Bond is just a fake for the real Bond, Mr Connery, yes? Well, i'll just echo the earlier sentiment, I've wanted more tales of Kirk and company since the end of STVI, and I am very happy to be getting them. Bring on the next film.
- Status
Similar threads
