Will Trek XI repel old fans?

[JoeZhang]

You could make the bridge so, that if you have a glimpse of the old bridge, followed by a glimpse of the new bridge, you'd say it's the same bridge.

Here's a thought: maybe they didn't want the moviegoers' first reaction to be "it's the same it's always been!". Maybe they'd rather have the moviegoers go: "wow, it's exciting!"

"hey it's not just the same old shit - maybe this is worth my attention!"

 

[ST-One]

It bothers me that people think the present's future is more valid than the past's future. Or that the future isn't what it used to be. How clever. Abrams should have been more altruistic and kept Rodenberry from being booted out of his own universe. Face it, it is no longer just Rodenberry's universe. Now it is being shared by J.J. and his egotistical enterouge. It's a freakin hybrid now.

'Egotistical'!?!
For crying out loud!

 

[pookha]

It bothers me that people think the present's future is more valid than the past's future. Or that the future isn't what it used to be. How clever. Abrams should have been more altruistic and kept Rodenberry from being booted out of his own universe. Face it, it is no longer just Rodenberry's universe. Now it is being shared by J.J. and his egotistical enterouge. It's a freakin hybrid now.

let me clue you into something. it hasnt just been roddenberry's universe for a long long time.
really back to the earlist days of tos.
very quickly other people started painting on the trek canvas often making subtle changes and others such as gene coon vast ones .
it has been a freaking hybrid for a long long time.

and for other issues..i do like canon to be acknowledge and for there to be continunity but i am also aware that tos itself wasnt perfect in that area.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah, fuck those old fans, they've only kept the franchise alive for 40 years... Fuck 'em for not wanting someone else to fuck up their favorite franchise even further than it has been in the lsat couple of series

Heh.

Maintaining an obsessive fascination with something for decades is not the same thing as "keeping it alive for forty years."

Pay attention: every version of "Star Trek" has depended for its success upon attracting many, many viewers and paying customers who are not "Star Trek" fans.

Every version.

"Star Trek" finally ceased to be commercially successful not when some of the pickier fans came to disapprove of a particular version (which most of them, based on the evidence of ratings and box office and DVD sales and Internet activity, continued to support) but when the larger, more mainstream and less devoted audience tuned out because of boredom.

Those are just facts. End of story.

 

[xortex]

You could make the bridge so, that if you have a glimpse of the old bridge, followed by a glimpse of the new bridge, you'd say it's the same bridge.

Here's a thought: maybe they didn't want the moviegoers' first reaction to be "it's the same it's always been!". Maybe they'd rather have the moviegoers go: "wow, it's exciting!"

"hey it's not just the same old shit - maybe this is worth my attention!"

TOS was shit ?

 

[JoeZhang]

Here's a thought: maybe they didn't want the moviegoers' first reaction to be "it's the same it's always been!". Maybe they'd rather have the moviegoers go: "wow, it's exciting!"

"hey it's not just the same old shit - maybe this is worth my attention!"

TOS was shit ?

Yes that's clearly what I am saying.

 

[JuanBolio]

...not to mention Manos: The Hands of Fate, Plan 9 From Outer Space, Buckaroo Banzai and Serenity.

FTFY.

Not. Even. Close.

 

[bismarck_1892]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that Star Trek is Star Trek because of the history that it has developed over these long decades. Once one begins to mess with that history, the franchise unravels and looses its character. It will stop being Trek. And who really needs more cookie cutter sci fi? I sure don't.

WE HAVE A WINNAH!!

That's what they said about BSG. Looks like they were wrong.

~String

Can't compare BSG or Batman to Trek.

 

[bismarck_1892]

Problem is you are speaking for all Trek fans. I think it's time for this kind of thing and
even if it is a drastic change I'll go see the next as long as it is a good movie with good
acting and has the principles of Trek at it's core because that matters far more to me
over a history that has repeatedly folded on itself anyways.

As for the look of the bridge, they have not done anything to trample on
the "Canon" design, it simply looks new and like TOS probably would have
looked like if it wasn't made 40 years ago. The Phasers look very much like
the Phasers of the TOS movie era but possibly look more mechanical.

People are fretting over the littlest things.

And don't act like the people complaining are the only ones who care
about this franchise. I too have grown up my entire life watching this
Universe unfold.

I think the changes would have to be cummulative. Each fan will determine on his or her own how many changes are okay with them and how many are not.

 

[3D Master]

You could make the bridge so, that if you have a glimpse of the old bridge, followed by a glimpse of the new bridge, you'd say it's the same bridge.

Here's a thought: maybe they didn't want the moviegoers' first reaction to be "it's the same it's always been!". Maybe they'd rather have the moviegoers go: "wow, it's exciting!"

"hey it's not just the same old shit - maybe this is worth my attention!"

If the first view of the bridge finally gets people to take notice, the movie is a lost cause already.

Besides, TOS is by definition not "the same old shit" that got people to tune out of Star Trek. That would be Voyager, Enterprise and Star Trek X. TOS is the series that got people to watch and rose to iconic status.

 

[archeryguy1701]

Actually, the movies (where the bridge was redone, the uniforms changed, the ship changed, etc) are what got people to watch. TOS was... canceled. And, you will note how everything (including the above-mentioned categories) has been changing as the years have gone by. Why should the makers of the new movie roll back 40 years to keep everything the same or extremely similar?

 

[3D Master]

Actually, the movies (where the bridge was redone, the uniforms changed, the ship changed, etc) are what got people to watch. TOS was... canceled.

Nope. TOS reruns is what got people to watch. They went to watch the movies because they all knew the series.

And, you will note how everything (including the above-mentioned categories) has been changing as the years have gone by. Why should the makers of the new movie roll back 40 years to keep everything the same or extremely similar?

Strange then, that the uniforms are practically carbon copies of the original series uniforms, aren't they? They went to roll back to 40-year-old characters, with 40-year-old uniforms! Everything stayed the same! How horrible! Now nobody will watch!

Quick, think of something! Ooh, iBridge saves the day! People will watch this movie ONLY because iBridge exists, yay!

 

[number6]

Actually, the movies (where the bridge was redone, the uniforms changed, the ship changed, etc) are what got people to watch. TOS was... canceled.

Nope. TOS reruns is what got people to watch. They went to watch the movies because they all knew the series.

And, you will note how everything (including the above-mentioned categories) has been changing as the years have gone by. Why should the makers of the new movie roll back 40 years to keep everything the same or extremely similar?

Strange then, that the uniforms are practically carbon copies of the original series uniforms, aren't they? They went to roll back to 40-year-old characters, with 40-year-old uniforms! Everything stayed the same! How horrible! Now nobody will watch!

Quick, think of something! Ooh, iBridge saves the day! People will watch this movie ONLY because iBridge exists, yay!

Why not? You people seem to think the movie will suck for the same reasoning.