posted
Yeah. It's not a reboot - Spock isn't female, the Klingons weren't created by man nor do they have a plan. Nobody's said of the Batman films "they're not Batman, I'm not going to watch!" Nobody has said of any of the Bond films "he's not Bond, I'm not going to watch!" . . . OK, so they DID say that about Casino Royale, but their choice was an aesthetic one (the casting of Craig) rather than the near-reboot the storyline presented.
This is the only way you're ever going to get new Trek. If you don't like the new direction, then don't watch (but you will! I bet you've even seen Nemesis even though you'd never admit it). It's you choice. I hope you have lots of DVD box-sets (there are 30-odd seasons to choose from).
posted
Batmand and Bond are different. Just like Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers are different. Some things have been rebooted and retold several times before I was even born. Some titles have had a different reboot for each generation.
Star Trek, however, is different. It's been one continuous story, one continuous universe for 40 years. Each story has contributed to the whole, making Star Trek a very solid, viable, believable universe. If, for some odd, fantasy reason I woke up one day in the Star Trek universe I could function and navigate just fine, practically like a native.
For me this is just too much change at one time. Sure, they all seem to be minor details such as Chekov's age, etc... But, how much can you change something without wiping it out and starting over?
Yes, I'm a canonista. Maybe I'm just too old.
I've got nothing against a new WAY of telling the stories. I've got nothing against different ideas being brought forth to enhance a continuing story in the saga of Trek.
But not at the sake of what has come before.
I wonder how many of the people saying "deal with it, accept it" will howl if/when (god forbid) they ever reboot Star Wars.
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Again, the difference is that Batman was generally accepted as being 'new' without going out of its way to 'poo' on the Adam West series. Batman had also had quite a few restarts and reimaginings by that time too.. but, yes, there were Adam West fans that screamed bloody murder when Nicholson put on the Joker makeup...
This 'new' Trek, though, has a more hostile tone towards the older material, actively saying 'the old stuff sucked, here's 90210 instead', rather than really trying to be respectful. It's wanting the names, the Trademarks, and built-in 'base' for the sales, but not really paying an ounce of attention to why that base exists in the first place.
For the record, I never expected nor wanted a return to the 1960s for the sets and props.. but, who, may I ask, was asking for a 'relaunch' with Kirk anyway? Most of us had long ago accepted TOS as part of history and just wanted something new that didn't, for once, just suck.
posted
And, no, I still have not seen Nemesis, and will likely still never go see it. Being a Trek fan doesn't automatically mean that I'm a mashochist.. though I sometimes wonder about that.
posted
Well, I wouldn't be surprised at a Star Wars reboot as their creator is raving lunatic who has become more and more engrossed with CGI.
Edit: Vanguard, I'd love to know what you deem exactly as canon. What do you think of Star Trek V?
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
....ok, this is a bullshit idea but *insert sarcasm tone..... HERE* with the seeming success of such fan-films like New Voyages/Phase II, Hidden frontier and Exeter (once/if they finish the credits for their Eps Two...), maybe the current PTB (who are clearly idiots, by all info provided) thought a reboot would be a good idea...
*meekly grows quiet* or some reason, along that line, fan-films to JJ-Trek...
Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Well, I wouldn't be surprised at a Star Wars reboot as their creator is raving lunatic who has become more and more engrossed with CGI.
Edit: Vanguard, I'd love to know what you deem exactly as canon. What do you think of Star Trek V?
it holds the same status that Macross 7 holds to the macross universe. It's ignored, depending on:
1) Who's remembering what?
2) what gets mentioned in other series.
3) Why go there, if you think that rocketboots, Guitar HOTAS controls (The original Guitar hero, Bommmmmbaaaaa?) and huge ass space vampires...
and oh yeah, the space whales, pussy whipped Klingons and what... what else is fucking retarded about both Macross 7 and STV?
quote:Again, the difference is that Batman was generally accepted as being 'new' without going out of its way to 'poo' on the Adam West series.
I don't see this movie or its creators "poo-ing" on the old series.
quote:Batman had also had quite a few restarts and reimaginings by that time too.. but, yes, there were Adam West fans that screamed bloody murder when Nicholson put on the Joker makeup...
There were? Those people really need to get a life
quote:This 'new' Trek, though, has a more hostile tone towards the older material, actively saying 'the old stuff sucked, here's 90210 instead', rather than really trying to be respectful. It's wanting the names, the Trademarks, and built-in 'base' for the sales, but not really paying an ounce of attention to why that base exists in the first place.
I respect your opinion, Vanguard, because you state your reasons eloquently instead of the usual canonista bullshit excuses, but honestly I fail to see how this movie and its creators have a hostile attitude toward TOS. If anything, Berman and Braga had more of a hostile attitude toward TOS when they created Enterprise than JJ Abrams has toward this movie.
quote:For the record, I never expected nor wanted a return to the 1960s for the sets and props.. but, who, may I ask, was asking for a 'relaunch' with Kirk anyway? Most of us had long ago accepted TOS as part of history and just wanted something new that didn't, for once, just suck.
Abrams chose Kirk, Spock, and the rest of TOS because that's what the average person equates when the word "Star Trek" is mentioned. If he had made a movie with yet another new crew on yet another new ship, people would just say, "Oh hell, not another new Trek" with the requisite eye-rolling.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm not too stringent on 'canon', to be honest. I think the salient points of any given episode or movie are really what has to be paid attention to. Then, second, what keeps within credibility.
Sadly, both of those very broad ideas are getting shat on by this movie. So.. there ya go.
quote:If he had made a movie with yet another new crew on yet another new ship, people would just say, "Oh hell, not another new Trek" with the requisite eye-rolling. [/QB]
Thing is, I'm not too sure that's not the reaction we're getting anyway. If many fans see this as a desperate cash grab, can you imagine what non-fans (and this movie will need a LOT of them) are thinking about it? Remember, this is only.. three years after Nemesis and two after Enterprise failed spectacularly?
I could be wrong, and this could be the 'next thing for teenage boys'.... but I'm obviously far from sold on the idea.
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
quote:Originally posted by Vanguard:
quote:If he had made a movie with yet another new crew on yet another new ship, people would just say, "Oh hell, not another new Trek" with the requisite eye-rolling.
Thing is, I'm not too sure that's not the reaction we're getting anyway. If many fans see this as a desperate cash grab, can you imagine what non-fans (and this movie will need a LOT of them) are thinking about it? Remember, this is only.. three years after Nemesis and two after Enterprise failed spectacularly?
I could be wrong, and this could be the 'next thing for teenage boys'.... but I'm obviously far from sold on the idea. [/QB]
I know this is far off topic (as that's abnormal around here when ST is concerned) but besides what my brother and myself thought of the faults of Ent (B&B phat finger fucking of the story line and somewhat unoriginallity), how exactly did Ent fail? and by who's standards, does that equate to failure? ratings? sponser's reduced amounts of $ they spend on adverting as the seasons go? the actual viewers, according to Nelsonomics?
I liked Ent. besides the xindi-to Iscandar storyline (which i still liked, mostly since i like story arc shows), i can't really fault Ent. It's the idiot Tv exec's, who obviously don't give a flying oscar-fist-fuck what you, me, or my ex-GF Y, THINK about TV shows. (when you make hand-over-fist as a TV exec, would you care?)
how much of a shit storm did Nu-BSG start up with when it was first leaked? Not that it matters, since Nu-BSG beats the shit out of anything in it's catagory. So the visuals look shiney, the bussard collectors are silvery hubcaps and the nacelles look like they are attached by Wishbones. So what?
*sighs* so what, indeed folks...
Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
I should really pay more attention to the little voice in my head that's saying "Why are you arguing the merits of a film you haven't seen yet with someone who clamis they will never see the film?" I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment (which is what I always thought the next status-line category below "Tim-like" should be).
I was watching Star Trek in 1973. Nineteen-seventy fucking three. Thirty-five years ago. Sam Tyler territory. Being three years old at the time, I'd be hard-pressed to express what it was about the show I liked. Spaceships, phaser battles, fights, the coolness of Kirk & Spock, the nice pretty patterns they made when standing on the transporter pads in their different coloured uniforms (three years old, remember?). The well-craftedness of the scripts and the intelligence and depth of the philosophical concepts expressed in the show didn't get a look in.
My point? That I'm as well-placed as anybody to decide what Star Trek is, and I don't have a problem with what I've seen so far.
Yes, the look of the film diverges wildly from that established on the show. But what did you expect? Iconic though they may be, the show's visuals have not aged well. New Voyages etc. may have proved that note-perfect (well, except for the acting) recreations of the look'n'feel of the show are possible, but no-one is rushing to watch them and no-one is offering James Cawley et al $200m budgets for their next outing. Try to do that on a big Hollywood film and it would be received with derision, you might as well have cast Wilson & Stiller as Kirk & Spock. The fact that Abrams is doing it, with his track record, makes me feel much happier than I'd be than if it was McG or Michael Bay directing.
Worst case scenario? The film does badly across the board and is a sad epitaph for an already-dead franchise. Best case? It reinvigorates the franchise, and though it may only lead to a handful of movies over the next deade or so, at some point a new show is created, done by someone willing to take risks, to think about pushing the envelope that's outside the box, to mix a metaphor. I'd love it if it was one of the cable channels - HBO, Showtime, AMC. The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, The Wire, Mad Men - these are all shows I love and which are unlike anything you've seen on TV.
quote:I don't see this movie or its creators "poo-ing" on the old series.
No, but you have to understand that it's tradition for polemics to equate subjective opinion with universal fact.
And if even Pensive advises caution and a cool head, well...I don't know what to say. I expect there to start raining blood and locusts any time now.
I like that frontal screen of the Enterprise, the wishbone is aesthetic. I've seen countless sovereignized or modernized attempts at the Connie class that didn't come close to this. And I enjoy that they give it influences of the 1965 hot rod "Atomic Refrigerator" kind, which has a basis in actual pop culture design that people can relate to, rather than the NX-01 dark-grey "plumbing under the sink" style.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I like the look of Spacedock in the preview. I think the film will be suitably epic - and probably more 'realistic' than ever. It will make the Star Trek experience something even MORE tangible for people! I think it looked good!
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
Pensive, Enterprise was a decided marketplace failure, as was Nemesis. Both lost huge amounts of money. Enterprise was being boistered up out of desperation for UPN (which is now also gone). It doesn't matter if you liked the show or not, it was an abject commerical failure.
Lee and Nim, I understand that you're entitled to your opinons. Please appreciate that I'm also entitled to mine, regardless if you agree with them or not. One of my biggest 'hates' with the new movie is actually from it's would-be supporters, who basically seem to think that even voicing concerns over any issues is worth throwing someone in the gulags.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
