Why are Star Trek fans so bitter about the reboot?

[benbess]

Originally Posted by peckinpah

Yes, the various alien species were evil when need be, but humanity--the population of Earth--was one big happy family, and that's something I just can't buy (particularly in a piece of fiction that's trying to make a point). Hell, Roddenberry himself is a good example of what's wrong (and likely always will be wrong) with humanity, what with all his lying, stealing, and infidelities. He couldn't overcome human nature, and to think that we can do so en masse is a pipe dream of the highest order.

I think Roddenberry's decision to make Starfleet a collection of spotless Boy Scouts robbed the show of quite a bit of drama. If the characters are going to make the journey from A to A, what's the point? And a lot of illogical plotting was required to make sure no one ever stepped out of line. Look at all the revisions made to "The City on the Edge of Forever." There's tension in the version where the lieutenant is the one who jumps back in time, but Ellison is absolutely right when he says it's stupid for McCoy to accidentally inject himself and go nuts.

Outside of Star Trek, probably the most common type of science fiction is dystopian. Sordid and pessimistic visions of the future are maybe more realistic, if you can call any sci fi realistic, but that's what sets Star Trek apart. So probably you're more attracted to something like the new BSG, which is fine, but that's not what Trek is all about. A certain optimism, even if it's unrealistic at times, is part of Trek's DNA.

But even with that, your idea that all Starfleet people are "boy scouts" is not accurate. In fact, in TWOK Dr. Carol Marcus specifically says that Kirk "was never a boy scout!" And examples of flawed and power-hungry Starfeet people, with questionable agendas, are pretty common in the Star Trek universe.

That's why in STID when Admiral Marcus, following the Section 31 MO, wants to use drones to remotely take out the terrorist *and* start a war with the Klingons, it makes sense—even within Star Trek's optimistic vision.

Here's another example. In Star Trek: Voyager, in the two-parter Equinox, a Starfleet captain has gone way wrong, and the crew of his ship is cruelly harvesting the life force of an intelligence species for their own ends, killing quite a number of these aliens.

There are other examples, but seemingly one thing that is maybe bothering you is the idea of a multicultural and multiethnic earth where different people get along and work together. In large parts of the US, and in some other parts of the world, that's obviously already happening. I get that for you the idea that that's going to happen all over the globe, and that all the conflicts in the middle east and elsewhere will resolve themselves, does seem overly optimistic. I get your point, and I don't really disagree with it. But within a sea of often negative sci fi, Trek is different in part because of this positive vision of the future. In "real life" I tend to be pessimistic (or just realistic) about some things, but perhaps ironically that's one of the main reasons why I'm a fan of Star Trek.

So, I guess I'm agreeing with you to a degree, but also saying that that's just what makes it Star Trek.

[peckinpah]

Originally Posted by benbess

Outside of Star Trek, probably the most common type of science fiction is dystopian. Sordid and pessimistic visions of the future are maybe more realistic, if you can call any sci fi realistic, but that's what sets Star Trek apart. So probably you're more attracted to something like the new BSG, which is fine, but that's not what Trek is all about. A certain optimism, even if it's unrealistic at times, is part of Trek's DNA.

But even with that, your idea that all Starfleet people are "boy scouts" is not accurate. In fact, in TWOK Dr. Carol Marcus specifically says that Kirk "was never a boy scout!" And examples of flawed and power-hungry Starfeet people, with questionable agendas, are pretty common in the Star Trek universe.

That's why in STID when Admiral Marcus, following the Section 31 MO, wants to use drones to remotely take out the terrorist *and* start a war with the Klingons, it makes sense—even within Star Trek's optimistic vision.

Here's another example. In Star Trek: Voyager, in the two-parter Equinox, a Starfleet captain has gone way wrong, and the crew of his ship is cruelly harvesting the life force of an intelligence species for their own ends, killing quite a number of these aliens.

There are other examples, but seemingly one thing that is maybe bothering you is the idea of a multicultural and multiethnic earth where different people get along and work together. In large parts of the US, and in some other parts of the world, that's obviously already happening. I get that for you the idea that that's going to happen all over the globe, and that all the conflicts in the middle east and elsewhere will resolve themselves, does seem overly optimistic. I get your point, and I don't really disagree with it. But within a sea of often negative sci fi, Trek is different in part because of this positive vision of the future. In "real life" I tend to be pessimistic (or just realistic) about some things, but perhaps ironically that's one of the main reasons why I'm a fan of Star Trek.

So, I guess I'm agreeing with you to a degree, but also saying that that's just what makes it Star Trek.

I'm specifically talking about Trek when Roddenberry was in control. The franchise became more shaded when he was forced out, then went back to being a preachy morality play when TNG first aired, then once again corrected itself when Roddenberry retired. The non-Roddenberry stuff is what I find interesting (to varying degrees), but his stuff leaves me cold. It's too didactic, heavy-handed, and dramatically inert for me. (And for the record, I find BSG inconsistent, overextended, and often laughably glum [in other words, it's too extreme in the other direction]. My idea of sci-fi-with-a-brain is something like Dan Simmons's Hyperion series.)

I might be a little less critical of old Trek if some reasonable explanation had been provided as to how we came to collectively better ourselves. That sort of pendulum-swing isn't something I can just accept. I'll swallow the pseudoscience and whatever else is required to make certain plots and situations work, but I prefer a strong foundation. I want/need to know how things got to a certain point. I'm weird that way.

But I'm genuinely glad that you can love it the way you do; I've been on the other side of the fence enough times not to recognize the value of a well-meaning contrary opinion. And I'm genuinely glad we could continue the discussion this long without resorting to insulting each other's mothers. That's refreshing.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by Samus Aran

The concept of a divided crew was one of the selling points, but by the end of the pilot they were unified and the Maquis were neutered. That right there should've been my first warning sign.

Oh exactly. You saw it right in the pilot and it went down from there. I mean really, you need to imagine a large portion of the crew was Maquis - what was the worst thing that could happen if they didn't fall in line? I don't mean that every week we should have seen a power struggle over who controls the ship but I think you could have seen more people complaining that the captain is not doing enough to get them home, etc. By the time they got 7 of 9, you had no idea they weren't home because of how the episodes worked.

benbess, problem with Admiral Marcus in Into Darkness is that he is wanting to start a war which goes against everything Starfleet. Now, I am not saying everyone in Starfleet is good because look at Star Trek 6 nad you get a similar issue but the idea that someone like him could move so far up the ladder and would be willing to sacrafice so many lives just to start a war is crazy. Humanity nearly destroyed themselves - classic Trek referred to that, TNG showed it in several episodes including the movie First Contact. The optimism of Trek is that humanity finally realised stuff like that benefits no one and decided to work to better themselves when they realised they were not alone. That was why the Federation was formed - exploration and mututal defence, starships not warships. That is why the mirror universe stories are interesting. There is being pessimistic and there is also being realistic and aware. The Enterprise has weapons not because they are looking for a fight but because they know there are dangers and want to be prepared - that is realistic.

I do think Roddenberry got a little too preachy at times but the core idea of Trek was that humanity will improve and that because of this improvement, we will be able to move out into the stars. I understand you sometimes want to make things a little darker to add drama but there needs to be a reason for it that makes sense within that Trek world and Marcus wanting a war with the klingons just doesn't. But that is how these movies work now - look at the end of the 2009 film: Nero's ship is going to be destroyed anyways, why does Kirk order to fire on it? You can say arrogant, etc but again, that goes against his Starfleet training so why give him command then? Even in 3, the Klingons killed his son, forced him to destory the Enterprise yet Kirk was going to save one on the planet. The only reason he didn't was because his life was in immediate danger - that is Starfleet training at work. These films ignore the history that led to this optimism. That is the core of Trek and you start messing with that and you are messing up Trek.

[mrr1]

Originally Posted by benbess

I don't really think you can just "explore" in a $190 million-dollar Star Trek movie.

I didn't say they should "just" explore. I said they should explore.

My point is that I would much have liked to have seen the crew to explore space and have to work their way out of some kind of new and thrilling crisis. This whole "revenge plot based on Earth" was a lazy idea to do a second time.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by peckinpah

I'm specifically talking about Trek when Roddenberry was in control. The franchise became more shaded when he was forced out, then went back to being a preachy morality play when TNG first aired, then once again corrected itself when Roddenberry retired. The non-Roddenberry stuff is what I find interesting (to varying degrees), but his stuff leaves me cold. It's too didactic, heavy-handed, and dramatically inert for me. (And for the record, I find BSG inconsistent, overextended, and often laughably glum [in other words, it's too extreme in the other direction]. My idea of sci-fi-with-a-brain is something like Dan Simmons's Hyperion series.)

I might be a little less critical of old Trek if some reasonable explanation had been provided as to how we came to collectively better ourselves. That sort of pendulum-swing isn't something I can just accept. I'll swallow the pseudoscience and whatever else is required to make certain plots and situations work, but I prefer a strong foundation. I want/need to know how things got to a certain point. I'm weird that way.

But I'm genuinely glad that you can love it the way you do; I've been on the other side of the fence enough times not to recognize the value of a well-meaning contrary opinion. And I'm genuinely glad we could continue the discussion this long without resorting to insulting each other's mothers. That's refreshing.

If you like Hyperion, clearly you like high-end science fiction.++ I read parts or maybe even all of that c. 25 years ago, but it's so long ago now that I don't really remember it well at all—except to say that it was good. Wonder if that could ever be a movie or miniseries?

Anyway, on Star Trek I partially agree about GR's flaws as a storyteller and a visionary. But imho it's useful to separately evaluate early Roddenberry (TOS) and late Roddenberry (TNG).

TOS was, as everyone knows, really a group effort. So many writers, producers, production designers, costume designers, set designers, etc., etc. contributed to that show. GR as is known was ok with seeming to take credit for some of this work by others since he was the originator of the show.

But anyway, as I said before, TOS is less idealized and optimistic than maybe you're giving it credit for. Look at Balance of Terror. There's racism right on the bridge, which Kirk says needs to stay in that man's quarters. Right there prejudice in the 23rd century is acknowledged, and it's clear that the best that Kirk hopes for is that this guy can hide it and keep it off the bridge. And the episode is about a cold war in space, with a battle to the death with a Romulan ship. It's a rather grim "peace through strength" episode. Probably Ronald Reagan, had he watched it in 1980, would have endorsed the ideology behind it.

What are Little Girls Made Of? As mentioned before, was written by the guy who wrote Psycho. And for a G-rated show it has some disturbing stuff.

[Show spoiler]At the end the Dr. Korby turns out to be a hybrid of robot and human, but with an emphasis on the former. He's made himself a sexy companion robot, Andrea, which nurse Chapel sarcastically criticizes. At the very end, he commits suicide and kills the fembot at the same time.

Within the limitations of what could be done on a TV budget and with the very strict standards and practices of the time, I think TOS is often effective drama. Sometimes that might be in spite of GR, but most of the time in TOS he contributed very effectively to the show, as the new books my Marc Cushman demonstrate.

But Roddenberry could make duds in TOS. In fact, one of the worst episodes of the whole show, The Omega Glory (even the title is awful), was largely written by GR himself. And he thought it was a masterpiece that should win awards.

????

Fast forward 20 years to TNG, and some of the most flawed elements, which you recognize, are things that GR did. He did assemble a good team, and there are good episodes even in the first season. But in my opinion he was sometimes doing almost as much harm as good to Star Trek during those early years of TNG. It was, as you said, when he started to fade away from the show that it really started to produce more good to great episodes.

[hasslein]

I hated 2009 more than Into Darkness, the main reason being the dumbing down for the masses with sophomoric sexual humor , the contrived situations & Uhura Spock relationship... 90210. The "Join Starfleet speech, Kirk stealing a car, the opening birth scene.. ugh.... I like Chris Pine as an actor, and would have liked him in the role a lot, had they not made Kirk such a douche

[peckinpah]

Originally Posted by benbess

If you like Hyperion, clearly you like high-end science fiction.++ I read parts or maybe even all of that c. 25 years ago, but it's so long ago now that I don't really remember it well at all—except to say that it was good. Wonder if that could ever be a movie or miniseries?

It's something I keep wishing HBO would take a shot at (along with some Neal Stephenson, Kavalier & Clay, Don DeLillo's Underworld, etc.). Pulling it off would be quite a feat, but I think it can be done.

[Shin sam]

Originally Posted by Iron-Fisted Punk

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!

Yep, spot on. DS9 was the best in show.

[assydingo]

2009 was superb. Nostalgic and fresh, never missed a character beat, exciting, fun, funny, just purely enjoyable. Re-watched it with some people on a stream. Ended up shedding a tear or two.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Shin sam

Yep, spot on. DS9 was the best in show.

As you can tell, I like DS9 too.

Actually, however, I'm kind of twisted as Trek fans go, because I actually like TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager all about equally—just for different reasons.

I think some others have mentioned that the first two years of DS9, just like for TNG, were a bit rocky as they figured things out. But there are some absolutely essential episodes during those first two seasons, including:

Emissary I & II
Duet
In the Hands of the Prophets
The Homecoming I
The Circle II
The Siege III
Blood Oath
The Maquis I & II
Crossover
The Jem'Hadar

I'm not saying you should skip the other ones, but if you want to probably you can. Some of them are good enough. But those are the essential ones—in the view of some of us, anyway.

Starting with S3 it's better to watch it straight through. There are fewer duds, and the show increasingly takes on a serialized format.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by hasslein

I hated 2009 more than Into Darkness, the main reason being the dumbing down for the masses with sophomoric sexual humor , the contrived situations & Uhura Spock relationship... 90210. The "Join Starfleet speech, Kirk stealing a car, the opening birth scene.. ugh.... I like Chris Pine as an actor, and would have liked him in the role a lot, had they not made Kirk such a douche

I think this is an important distinction. Shatner's Kirk may've taken risks, but he was a rational, thoughtful leader. Pine's Kirk is a jerk. This is not the actor's fault but the writers'.

[iank]

There will only ever be one Captain Kirk, and it ain't Pine.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by blu-mike

I haven't met one Trek fan who loved Star Trek(2009) and Into Darkness. Honestly, if Star Wars was being rebooted I wouldn't mind if it was done right.


But why do the Trek fans hate the reboot and sequel so much that they voted Into Darkness as the "Worse Star Trek movie"

Woah woah woah. I love the first one, I mean L-O-V-E. There's more heart and soul and emotion in that first 10 minutes alone than in the entirety of your average big budget bullshit blockbuster, I think it's terrific. There are plot holes, there are cosmic coincidences, but I can let that stuff ride because it doesn't derail the film and nor does it assume that the viewer has a mental age of six-and-a-half. The holes are there partly because of the writer's strike, and partly for the sake of expediency, like cutting out Nero's imprisonment on Rura Penthe to speed up the story.

But STID, man oh man oh man. It takes all the goodwill that ST built up and flushes it completely down the toilet from the opening reel, showing a fundamental disregard for what the Prime Directive actually is (why is Pike pissed about the natives seeing the ship, when the point is that Kirk and co. were interfering with the planet's destiny to ****ing well begin with!) which then undermines the entire premise. Every single story point is hammered home with the subtlety of a brick through a window (did we really have to see Khan pumping his magic blood right at the beginning, basically telegraphing his entire reveal? Why not just show matey being given the vial?), the narrative itself makes a spectacularly small amount of sense and relies on coincidence after coincidence, and the nods to The Wrath of Khan have been shoehorned in with no attempt to grasp what made that movie so incredibly moving in the first place. Quinto's "KHAAAAAAAAAN!" is plain embarassing, and it wasn't even Khan who instigated the whole thing in the first place! But Spock yelling "ADMIRAL MARCUSSSSSSSSS!" wouldn't have worked for the TWOK reference...

Oh, and the first movie coming up with transwarp beaming to get the plot out of a hole I can tolerate (they even explain it away in STID when Scotty says that Starfleet confiscated his equation, one of the few sensible lines in the whole film), but the creation of magic blood that reanimates the dead is the stupidity motherlode, it's one of the most singularly lazy plot developments I think I've seen in any movie EVER. And for some reason the characters have a habit of saying that they can't do something, and then they do it about five minutes later, especially Bones. First he says that they can't thaw out any of Khan's people to get at their magic blood because he doesn't know how the cryotubes work - hence the footchase to catch Khan to save Kirk - but when they need to freeze Kirk, not only do they have a cryotube ready to go but it's also empty, despite having earlier established that each one is occupied. What did they do? Stick the poor occupant in a freezerbag? And if they did thaw someone out, why then carry on chasing after Khan?

And why....oh, forget it. STID is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long, long time. It's relentlessly, wilfully, aggressively stupid, maybe even more so than the previous king of crap, Transformers 2.

I'm still buying the IMAX version though. It's pretty.

[peckinpah]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And for some reason the characters have a habit of saying that they can't do something, and then they do it about five minutes later, especially Bones. First he says that they can't thaw out any of Khan's people to get at their magic blood because he doesn't know how the cryotubes work - hence the footchase to catch Khan to save Kirk - but when they need to freeze Kirk, not only do they have a cryotube ready to go but it's also empty, despite having earlier established that each one is occupied. What did they do? Stick the poor occupant in a freezerbag? And if they did thaw someone out, why then carry on chasing after Khan?

There's a scene where Bones orders one of Khan's crew be taken out of a 'tube and kept in an induced coma. They then stick Kirk in the 'tube.

As for needing Khan's blood, was it ever established that the rest of the crew shared the same type of enhanced/magical/whatever blood? Khan was the only one whose blood McCoy tested.

[Kaiju]

Because the new ones are all style and no substance. Well, little substance.

I like the 2009 movie, but Into Darkness went too far down the path of non-stop action.

[Spirit Zero]

Shit this clips needs to go EVERYWHERE!

Dear Hollywood - Remakes, Reboots, & Sequels - YouTube

Originally Posted by Kaiju

Because the new ones are all style and no substance. Well, little substance.

I like the 2009 movie, but Into Darkness went too far down the path of non-stop action.

+ 1 (0000) Give this man a prize because we have a winner.

'Into Darkness' was the worst Star Trek film (and general sci-fi film) I've seen for some time, it was dreadfully bad and littered with plot holes and inconsistencies.

[Kaiju]

Originally Posted by Spirit Zero

'Into Darkness' was the worst Star Trek film (and general sci-fi film) I've seen for some time, it was dreadfully bad and littered with plot holes and inconsistencies.

It was incredibly disappointing.

I still think Spock screaming "KHAAAAN!" is one of the funniest, cringe-worthy moments in a movie. What were they thinking?

[Spirit Zero]

Originally Posted by Kaiju

It was incredibly disappointing.

I still think Spock screaming "KHAAAAN!" is one of the funniest, cringe-worthy moments in a movie. What were they thinking?

It made no sense because neither character knew each other that well enough to evoke that kind of emotion.

It was an obvious horrendous scene crowbarred in simply to appease fanboys by giving them a franchise love letter moment. A bland emotionless fail that the creators think was clever because they switched the roles. Alternative dimensional reality? we can just switch the roles...wow that was easy and look how clever we look. The fans will LOVE it!

[Kaiju]

Originally Posted by Spirit Zero

It made no sense because neither character knew each other that well enough to evoke that kind of emotion.

It was an obvious horrendous scene crowbarred in simply to appease fanboys by giving them a franchise love letter moment. A bland emotionless fail that the creators think was clever because they switched the roles. Alternative dimensional reality? we can just switch the roles...wow that was easy and look how clever we look. The fans will LOVE it!

I blame Damon Lindelof.

[iank]

Originally Posted by Kaiju

It was incredibly disappointing.

I still think Spock screaming "KHAAAAN!" is one of the funniest, cringe-worthy moments in a movie. What were they thinking?

I actually laughed. So painful.