Who no longer cares? (Raise your hand)

[jayrath]

With all the fan frenzy, with all the slowly-released hype . . . I more and more feel that ST XI has absolutely nothing to to with my own Star Trek, and my own affection for it.

Instead it is this strange new thing, somewhat related, and I wish it well.

And I could not care less.

Wildly successful or a complete misstep, with Nimoy or even Shatner, or without . . .

I feel it is completely divorced from anything that has gone before, good or bad. I have absolutely no objection to a new approach or even a reboot, or to a slavish canon reproduction.

I just . . . do not care. It will be this other new thing.

Anyone else?

 

[Kegek]

I'm apathetic, but this is nothing new. I've always been convinced that this series marks a departure, for better or worse (hopefully better!), but I refuse to get excited lest my hopes shatter. Does that count?

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I am fairly excited about it. It is cock full of potential, and feels like the best shot this franchise has had in years.

The only thing that makes me not care (or more appropriately, "burn out") is watching people incessantly pick every little detail to death here at the BBS. But that has next to nothing to do with the movie we will actually see in December. (Plus, it's high comedy.) :thumbsup:

 

[SeerSGB]

I'm excited, but not excited...if that makes sense.

I long ago stop trying to pretend that this is going to dock in perfectly with what's come before, I've even stopped caring about the recast. All I want is a good, solid, sci-fi movie that just happens to be Star Trek. If a reboot is what it is, so be it, I frankly couldn't care anymore one way or the other.

 

[Candlelight]

It may be good movie, but it's still a prequel, and Roddenberry has always said Trek was about going forward, not backwards.

Not interested at all. Been saying that since day one.

 

[RoJoHen]

I'm avoiding as many spoilers as I can in attempts to remain excited. The more I know, the less I'll care.

That said, I can't wait until December.

 

[RodneyMcKay]

I care. Actually,this upcoming movie has renewed and strengthened my interest in Trek. And that teaser helped a bit too.
All I care is they capture the spirit of Trek, have a good story with good performances and directing.

Things I don't care for ?
Those quick to jump to conclusions with little to no information (and there's loads of those here)
Those who nitpick to death.

I don't care they are using a new cast.I like the idea.
I don't care if they violate canon and reimagine-reboot.

Anyway,I'm pretty sure you get the idea.
Bring the new Trek on.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Year of Hell said:
It may be good movie, but it's still a prequel, and Roddenberry has always said Trek was about going forward, not backwards.

I'm sure he meant going forward philosophically; going forward as a race; going forward as a universe that must live and work together. Not going forward chronologically. There's nothing inherently good or right or inspirational about just going forward in time.

And if that's not what he meant, then fuck him.

 

[K'riq Sa]

are we there yet?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'd raise my hand, but one's busy with the computer mouse and the other's always hitting the "refresh" button on http://www.trekmovie.com or http://www.paramount.com/startrek.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Year of Hell said:
Roddenberry has always said Trek was about going forward, not backwards.

What's the quote? Where and when did he say it?

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Starship Polaris said:

Year of Hell said:
Roddenberry has always said Trek was about going forward, not backwards.

What's the quote? Where and when did he say it?

"Somewhere... In the back of my mind." -Lex Luthor (Superman: The Movie)

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Samuel T. Cogley said:
I'm sure he meant going forward philosophically; going forward as a race; going forward as a universe that must live and work together. Not going forward chronologically. There's nothing inherently good or right or inspirational about just going forward in time.

Agreed. It seems to me that some take his idea "always going forward" a tad bit too literally.

And if that's not what he meant, then fuck him.

yeah, I'm still pissed at the bastard for declaring TAS non-canonical...

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

EliyahuQeoni said:
yeah, I'm still pissed at the bastard for declaring TAS non-canonical...

Then I hereby declare TAS canon!

Let's see Gene try and stop me.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I can't wait for this movie, ever since ENT I've been waiting for a new bold interpretation of the original Trek. The paradigm that has been followed from TOS to ENT is 40 years old; it's high-time that the paradigm be shifted and the concept revitalized.

 

[Cyrus]

"Trek was about going forward" was something that Takei always used for criticism of ENT. Ironically the series that he himself was pushing for was not about going forward either.

 

[seigezunt]

so does this mean the annoying haters will go away?


didn't think so.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Check back in a few days. Someone will have a fresh take on not caring.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Samuel T. Cogley said:

Then I hereby declare TAS canon!

And there was much rejoicing.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

jayrath said:
With all the fan frenzy, with all the slowly-released hype . . . I more and more feel that ST XI has absolutely nothing to to with my own Star Trek, and my own affection for it.

Instead it is this strange new thing, somewhat related, and I wish it well.

And I could not care less.

Wildly successful or a complete misstep, with Nimoy or even Shatner, or without . . .

I feel it is completely divorced from anything that has gone before, good or bad. I have absolutely no objection to a new approach or even a reboot, or to a slavish canon reproduction.

I just . . . do not care. It will be this other new thing.

Anyone else?

Yeah, that's more-or-less where I am--though I do enjoy civil debate about the minutiae. But, as much as I enjoyed some of TNG and most of DS9, I rather wish Trek had died with Spock back in 1982 and both had stayed dead.