Why are Star Trek fans so bitter about the reboot?

[benbess]

And the original honest trailer for 09 Trek also makes some good points.

Honest Trailers - Star Trek (2009) - YouTube

[Todd Tomorrow]

I'm a casual Star Trek fan (it's certainly more appealing to me than Star Wars) and I loved the reboot Star Trek, but hated Into Darkness, simply because it was a bad film. It put action above characterisation and ideas and that's not the Star Trek way. Into Darkness riffed on STII, the best of the original films and fell flat because it lacked the emotional resonance of the earlier film.

Then again, I'm not going to loose any sleep over it because several of the original films were pretty bad as well.

[mport5150]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Well, I'm a Star Trek fan from the Next Generation era and I love the reboot. I love the original series too, but I only followed that series several years after TNG ended.

But, I can understand why. By having Vulcan

[Show spoiler]destroyed

and altering some significant backstory elements of some characters, the film fundamentally wipes out the existence of everything Star Trek that has come before. In one regard it is a complete disrespect to Gene Roddenberry (the creator) and everyone who worked so hard on all Star Trek projects. In another regard it is an extreme homage to what Star Trek did best. So, the combination is quite volatile since those who recognize both of these aspects desperately want to defend the old material while being extra emotional about the fact that it was handled in such a wonderful Star Trek manner.

Just my $0.02 though. "You don't have to take my word for it."

I think this is well said and agree completely

[Kryptonic]

If you're using Honest Trailers for your arguments, you're failing already.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

If you're using Honest Trailers for your arguments, you're failing already.

Correct.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

If you're using Honest Trailers for your arguments, you're failing already.

Disagree.

The honest trailer makes some good points. As it points out, the use of Khaaaan was unoriginal, uninspired, etc. The use of Spock and the tangled destruction and yet continued existence of the original time line is also a problem. The trailers also point out how nu Kirk is something of a decline from original Kirk.

Again, I like the new movies ok. I'm glad they've revived the franchise. But they've got flaws and weaknesses that the honest trailers get at pretty well.

[Lutz]

Star Trek has always been deeply Humanist and I don't see any of that in the new movies.

It is about characters with morals, beliefs, exploration and finding - most importantly - joy and fulfillment from life. Again...

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by benbess

Disagree.

The honest trailer makes some good points. As it points out, the use of Khaaaan was unoriginal, uninspired, etc. The use of Spock and the tangled destruction and yet continued existence of the original time line is also a problem. The trailers also point out how nu Kirk is something of a decline from original Kirk.

Again, I like the new movies ok. I'm glad they've revived the franchise. But they've got flaws and weaknesses that the honest trailers get at pretty well.

*eyeroll*

Come on. People like me would have been SO disappointed if that hadn't happened!

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Lutz

Star Trek has always been deeply Humanist and I don't see any of that in the new movies.

It is about characters with morals, beliefs, exploration and finding - most importantly - joy and fulfillment from life. Again...

There are shards of the original idealistic vision of Trek that are still there, imho, but to a significant degree you're right that it's been obscured by mega explosions, non-stop action, magic "superblood," etc.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by benbess

There are shards of the original idealistic vision of Trek that are still there, imho, but to a significant degree you're right that it's been obscured by mega explosions, non-stop action, magic "superblood," etc.

To be fair, that "original vision" hasn't been around since TOS ended. TNG, Voyager, DS9, Enterprise -- well, Enterprise is sort of its own thing -- but the others were quite different in tone, ideals, and structure than TOS.

And let's face it: They had to be.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

To be fair, that "original vision" hasn't been around since TOS ended. TNG, Voyager, DS9, Enterprise -- well, Enterprise is sort of its own thing -- but the others were quite different in tone, ideals, and structure than TOS.

And let's face it: They had to be.

You make a good point. Each show really is its own thing.

TNG was equally idealistic, maybe even more so than TOS, but the changes were big. In TOS the ongoing conflict between Spock and McCoy is one of the key things in the show. But for TNG they decided that everyone would more or less get along. Dramatically that shouldn't have worked, but somehow it did. And in TOS Shatner's Kirk is young, brash, and often romancing the lady or alien of the week. TNG's Picard is just as good, but a radical change with an older, bald, Shakespearean actor.

And just when you thought you knew Trek from TNG, DS9 changed things with a darker tone, grittier characters with conflict, a station rather than a ship, an increasingly serialized story, etc.

But, back to new Trek. One of the things I most like about the new movies is Karl Urban's Bones. The new Dr. McCoy is a lot of fun. Hope they use him even more in the next one.

Zoe Saldana's Uhura is also a lot of fun. They need to watch the "nagging girlfriend stuff," but I like how she's a linguistic specialist who gets to go on away missions now.++

[cudzndrips]

When you think about the size of the Enterprise realistically you're not gonna have an engine room with 4 control panels, a dylithium chamber and a replicator. It's gonna be big you only have to remember the engine room scenes in Titanic or look at photos of aircraft carrier engine rooms to know it requires some serious hardware and manpower to keep that ship operating. For me the 2009 films engine room is the most realistic we'll get to see.

[ArtVandelay]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I'm a casual Star Trek fan (it's certainly more appealing to me than Star Wars) and I loved the reboot Star Trek, but hated Into Darkness, simply because it was a bad film. It put action above characterisation and ideas and that's not the Star Trek way. Into Darkness riffed on STII, the best of the original films and fell flat because it lacked the emotional resonance of the earlier film.

Then again, I'm not going to loose any sleep over it because several of the original films were pretty bad as well.

This pretty much sums up why STID was a bad film in itself.


As for Cumberbatch yelling KHAAAN, that's one of the most ridiculous scenes in the entire movie considering that Alt-Kirk and Alt-Spock have never heard of or dealt with him before.

A good reply would have been: "Big whoop. Who's Khan?"

[peckinpah]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

To be fair, that "original vision" hasn't been around since TOS ended. TNG, Voyager, DS9, Enterprise -- well, Enterprise is sort of its own thing -- but the others were quite different in tone, ideals, and structure than TOS.

And let's face it: They had to be.

Yep.

One of the things I really like about Into Darkness is one of the things a lot of ardent fans of TOS seem to hate, and that's the fact that somebody finally had the stones to admit that not everybody in Starfleet would be crusading pacifists. You don't spend that much time, effort, and money to build armed-to-the-teeth spaceships and not have anybody ever use one to pick a fight. Khan would definitely be exploited in that manner, and not just by some rogue middle-manager whose actions wouldn't have any real consequence.

[benbess]

Actually, as TNG and especially DS9 went on, they increasingly explored the "dark side" of Starfleet. In fact, the whole "section 31" plot in the new movie is a clever borrowing from DS9. Starfeet in DS9 is sometimes far from idealistic. They turn a blind eye to Section 31, which is like the CIA/NSA of Starfleet that does quite a bit of dirty work during the Dominion War.

Anyway, the use of Section 31 is one of the things I like best about Into Darkness—but that comes from original Trek.

[Iron-Fisted Punk]

Originally Posted by benbess

Actually, as TNG and especially DS9 went on, they increasingly explored the "dark side" of Starfleet. In fact, the whole "section 31" plot in the new movie is a clever borrowing from DS9. Starfeet in DS9 is sometimes far from idealistic. They turn a blind eye to Section 31, which is like the CIA/NSA of Starfleet that does quite a bit of dirty work during the Dominion War.

Anyway, the use of Section 31 is one of the things I like best about Into Darkness—but that comes from original Trek.

Yes I loved the inclusion of Section 31 in the new movie as well. It makes sense to bring them into the picture after the events of 09 TREK. They were also in Star Trek: Enterprise.

I personally really enjoyed STID. I'm tired of people calling it a rehash of WOK. It's not. ST Nemesis will always be a biggest rip off of WOK.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by benbess

Actually, as TNG and especially DS9 went on, they increasingly explored the "dark side" of Starfleet. In fact, the whole "section 31" plot in the new movie is a clever borrowing from DS9. Starfeet in DS9 is sometimes far from idealistic. They turn a blind eye to Section 31, which is like the CIA/NSA of Starfleet that does quite a bit of dirty work during the Dominion War.

Anyway, the use of Section 31 is one of the things I like best about Into Darkness—but that comes from original Trek.

And also, in DS9 torture -- or in most cases a history of torture -- played a big role in the underlying, overarching conflict. And that's pretty damned dark.

Also, once they introduced the Borg in TNG, and especially once they had "Best of Both Worlds," there was no turning back (which of course was Q's point -- to show Picard what the galaxy could REALLY be like). And of course with Voyager, you had not only issues with the Borg, carrying over from TNG, but also nagging issues stemming from the Cardassian conflict carrying over from DS9.

I think some people tend to look back at pre-reboot ST with some very rose-colored glasses.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by benbess

Disagree.

The honest trailer makes some good points. As it points out, the use of Khaaaan was unoriginal, uninspired, etc. The use of Spock and the tangled destruction and yet continued existence of the original time line is also a problem. The trailers also point out how nu Kirk is something of a decline from original Kirk.

Again, I like the new movies ok. I'm glad they've revived the franchise. But they've got flaws and weaknesses that the honest trailers get at pretty well.

Put your points and arguments together yourself. Don't just blindly follow a goddamn internet video.

THINK!

[jbloggs]

I love everything about Star Trek, except for DS9 which I never really got into. I'm just waiting for the day when the Star Trek universe and Star Wars universe collide

[Iron-Fisted Punk]

Originally Posted by jbloggs

I love everything about Star Trek, except for DS9 which I never really got into. I'm just waiting for the day when the Star Trek universe and Star Wars universe collide

DS9 took a couple years to get going, but it is, to me, the best series of them all. TNG was best for episodic shows, DS9 was best for overall story arc and themes.

I encourage you to give it a second chance, bloggs!