Why are Star Trek fans so bitter about the reboot?

[crow2k5]

I love the reboot & into darkness, i hope J.J. keeps them coming.

[Kryptonic]

Trek needed this, for better or worse, to survive. Before Abrams, Trek was dead. The film franchise was dead and Enterprise was over.

I enjoyed both of the new films a lot, but I do wish they would get back to more of a genuine science fiction feeling as opposed to the thriller/action film mold the first two were cut from.

[L-Rouge]

on a side note, if you haven't spotted this already ST:ID gets blu ray re-release - with everything including IMAX footage, yuss!

http://thedigitalbits.com/columns/my...ts/062314_0600

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by L-Rouge

on a side note, if you haven't spotted this already ST:ID gets blu ray re-release - with everything including IMAX footage, yuss!

http://thedigitalbits.com/columns/my...ts/062314_0600

Never thought this would happen. Good job Paramount, though it should have been released this way in the first place, but at least we're getting it.

[Drewbee87]

Originally Posted by L-Rouge

on a side note, if you haven't spotted this already ST:ID gets blu ray re-release - with everything including IMAX footage, yuss!

http://thedigitalbits.com/columns/my...ts/062314_0600

Note that Paramount is working to set up a rebate offer for those who purchased the original Star Trek Into Darkness Blu-ray

[L-Rouge]

Yea Paramount went to extraordinary lengths there! day1.

[L.J.]

I'm a Trek fan from the early eighties my Dad and me use to watch the original on reruns. Him and me enjoy the reboot. Its not as good but do like it.

[Ben_UK]

I wouldn’t call myself a trekkie as such, I liked TNG and the original films, but I don’t dress up and go to conventions etc. I wouldn’t say the reboot was all bad. I liked the casting and the performances were mostly good, what I dislike about the reboot was that everything seems to whizz by the camera at 400mph. I didn’t like the production design or the direction they went with the overall look of the film(s) either.

[NYorker]

I don't call myself a trekkie, but the only good thing about the reboots are the casts. The stories were terrible (an 'alternate timeline...?' basically giving the old films the shaft).
They couldn't come up with a new villain so they brought Kahn, and although Cumberbatch was good (did I spell him correctly?) he was underused, and again, the story was cardboard.

[cudzndrips]

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"

I've been a Trekkie (now a Trekker lol) since TNG and have watched and loved them all. I'm also starting to be ok with watching Nemesis again. I love DS9 as much as TNG and if they eventually release DS9 on Blu-ray then i may just mess my pants. For me JJ Abrams did an amazing job bringing ST back to the mainstream after it's absence once Enterprise had ended. I actually saw the 2009 reboot SEVEN times in theatres and INTO DARKNESS I saw 4 times. With the addition of Michael G. fantastic score (which to this day I still find myself humming every now and then) and the 50th Anniversary coming in 2 years I think Star Trek fans are gonna be given something very special with the 3rd outing and I cannot wait.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by cudzndrips

I've been a Trekkie (now a Trekker lol) since TNG and have watched and loved them all. I'm also starting to be ok with watching Nemesis again. I love DS9 as much as TNG and if they eventually release DS9 on Blu-ray then i may just mess my pants. For me JJ Abrams did an amazing job bringing ST back to the mainstream after it's absence once Enterprise had ended. I actually saw the 2009 reboot SEVEN times in theatres and INTO DARKNESS I saw 4 times. With the addition of Michael G. fantastic score (which to this day I still find myself humming every now and then) and the 50th Anniversary coming in 2 years I think Star Trek fans are gonna be given something very special with the 3rd outing and I cannot wait.

Yeah. Yep. Yes.

[ArtVandelay]

Star Trek works best when it is on TV, as an ensemble TV show with strong characterisation, dealing with sci-fi stuff on a personal level.

It is not about super villains out for revenge, and it's most certainly not supposed to be Marvel's Kirk & Spock, but this is what the last two movies were. Past movies already veered into ludicrous territory (5 and 10 come to mind), but those were special events, companion pieces released while the TV series were ongoing.

Nowadays, Trek comes in just this one flavour (overblown, ridiculous blockbuster), and it's a damn shame. What we need is diversity, wonderful characters, story arcs developing over several seasons.

Genre shows were dead in 2005, nobody wanted them. If you were a fan of Enterprise, you were the subject of ridicule.

Today, Game of Thrones and Doctor Who are the bee's knees. People who like them are not uncool, they are the target audience in a highly competitive media segment.

The world is ready for another Star Trek series. You know, a really good one. Maybe even on cable, with just 8 to 13 episodes a year.

But JJ won't let any other Trek happen as long as he's doing the movies. Tribble inventor David Gerrold confirmed that when I recently saw him at a convention.

I'm bitter about THAT.

[ditcin]

Simple, it sucks. I'm not a Star Trek fan at all but when I watched the "reboot" it simply sucked. Stupid. When I saw that the ships engine room looks more like basement with more plumbing than a water purifying facility I realized the level and lack of creativity being shoved in my face. It's probably because I'm am older and have seen much better films in my lifetime by better producers, writers and directors. I don't blame the actors because they are looking for a paycheck. I can't blame the studio because they simply want the franchise to go on to make for money. Good taste and talent is a things almost gone from movies today so trash has become the norm. Most viewer's don't even know the difference - when you're brought up drinking dirty water you know nothing else. Updated something just bring it down to a lower standard is not reworking it for the better. Having Kirk and Spock act like to cocks fight over the Communications officer, and thus lowering Uhura into being a current day "hoe" just so a Honey Boo-boo audience can relate and think it's more realistic is disgusting. Things were written better years ago. Characters were fleshed out, yes with flaws, but they had better depth and in the end were people to look up to. Roddenberry wanted the audience to see a future to look forward to showing that good standards survived through the years and that human beings improved and evolved. Bring down these characters and making them more of today's lower standards is missing the point. Then again that is something that has corrupted films now for a good 20 years. Stories from the Bible have been given the sleaze treatment. Angels drink, curse, fight like ghetto trash and even have sex with women - yet are not considered fallen?! Superman was given a bastard son, lies and now snaps necks. So why shouldn't futuristic characters meant to be models to aspire to, in a way of life where achievements are considered hard work for all and not racial curves to lower standards for the sake of political correctness - is it any wonder why when these attributes are subtracted from the original equation quality lacks and those who can miss what was originally intended be insulted, and not like the reboot?
It a matter of fallen standards, quality and talent given to produce fodder for an audience who is only reflecting what shines off the screen; and what has sadly become the norm for generation that steps up with acceptance to a trough.

[peckinpah]

This version of Trek was designed to appeal to a much larger section of the public, and certain fanatics are going to dismiss anything that expands or attempts to expand popularity beyond their own small faction. It's no longer "theirs," and that pisses them off. This may not apply to many fans, but the ones to whom it does apply do an awful lot of the whining and moaning.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by ArtVandelay

Star Trek works best when it is on TV, as an ensemble TV show with strong characterisation, dealing with sci-fi stuff on a personal level.
It is not about super villains out for revenge, and it's most certainly not supposed to be Marvel's Kirk & Spock, but this is what the last two movies were. Past movies already veered into ludicrous territory (5 and 10 come to mind), but those were special events, companion pieces released while the TV series were ongoing.

Nowadays, Trek comes in just this one flavour (overblown, ridiculous blockbuster), and it's a damn shame. What we need is diversity, wonderful characters, story arcs developing over several seasons.

(Well, two out of three--They tried story arcs of longer than three episodes in Enterprise, and the results were best not mentioned.)

The world is ready for another Star Trek series. You know, a really good one. Maybe even on cable, with just 8 to 13 episodes a year.

But JJ won't let any other Trek happen as long as he's doing the movies. Tribble inventor David Gerrold confirmed that when I recently saw him at a convention.
I'm bitter about THAT.

Abrams has now spent two films remembering how KEWWWWL Wrath of Khan was, in exhaustive geek-quoting detail, without remembering what particularly made it cool at the time--The fact that we had likable, familiar characters dealing with galactic crises, and, particularly in WoK, were facing their own flaws and mortality.

Abrams' first movie captured a little bit of Kirk's youngest-captain cockiness, McCoy's cantankerousness, Scotty's love for his engines and even young Spock's frustrating deadpan.
But no, everything has to be ratcheted up a notch: It's a post-Dark Knight blockbuster world now, where nothing less than a shocking real-world-pessimistic 9/11 destroying Starfleet can get the plot in motion, and Khan isn't simply a callback villain from a classic old episode, but Bane, Bin Laden and the Mandarin Combined.
And at least Gerrold can relax that Tribbles (or Klingon bar brawls) simply do not exist in Abrams world.

Star Trek may have seemed "big" by 1967 standards, but it's very hard to do Big Star Trek and have the same comfort-character feel to it.
(And I won't even get into Uhura in both movies now being PC Super-Empowered-Girl, when in the series, she was simply an "average" young ex-cadet prone to girlish thoughts on duty, and a habit of singing during breaks....That's sort of an example of what we lost by pumping $150 million of nervous studio money into it.)

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by ditcin

Simple, it sucks. I'm not a Star Trek fan at all but when I watched the "reboot" it simply sucked. Stupid. When I saw that the ships engine room looks more like basement with more plumbing than a water purifying facility I realized the level and lack of creativity being shoved in my face. It's probably because I'm am older and have seen much better films in my lifetime by better producers, writers and directors. I don't blame the actors because they are looking for a paycheck. I can't blame the studio because they simply want the franchise to go on to make for money. Good taste and talent is a things almost gone from movies today so trash has become the norm. Most viewer's don't even know the difference - when you're brought up drinking dirty water you know nothing else. Updated something just bring it down to a lower standard is not reworking it for the better. Having Kirk and Spock act like to cocks fight over the Communications officer, and thus lowering Uhura into being a current day "hoe" just so a Honey Boo-boo audience can relate and think it's more realistic is disgusting. Things were written better years ago. Characters were fleshed out, yes with flaws, but they had better depth and in the end were people to look up to. Roddenberry wanted the audience to see a future to look forward to showing that good standards survived through the years and that human beings improved and evolved. Bring down these characters and making them more of today's lower standards is missing the point. Then again that is something that has corrupted films now for a good 20 years. Stories from the Bible have been given the sleaze treatment. Angels drink, curse, fight like ghetto trash and even have sex with women - yet are not considered fallen?! Superman was given a bastard son, lies and now snaps necks. So why shouldn't futuristic characters meant to be models to aspire to, in a way of life where achievements are considered hard work for all and not racial curves to lower standards for the sake of political correctness - is it any wonder why when these attributes are subtracted from the original equation quality lacks and those who can miss what was originally intended be insulted, and not like the reboot?
It a matter of fallen standards, quality and talent given to produce fodder for an audience who is only reflecting what shines off the screen; and what has sadly become the norm for generation that steps up with acceptance to a trough.

I'm sorry, but I can't take this seriously at all.

Oh, and ... paragraphs are your friend.

[peckinpah]

Originally Posted by ditcin

Simple, it sucks. I'm not a Star Trek fan at all but when I watched the "reboot" it simply sucked. Stupid. When I saw that the ships engine room looks more like basement with more plumbing than a water purifying facility I realized the level and lack of creativity being shoved in my face. It's probably because I'm am older and have seen much better films in my lifetime by better producers, writers and directors. I don't blame the actors because they are looking for a paycheck. I can't blame the studio because they simply want the franchise to go on to make for money. Good taste and talent is a things almost gone from movies today so trash has become the norm. Most viewer's don't even know the difference - when you're brought up drinking dirty water you know nothing else. Updated something just bring it down to a lower standard is not reworking it for the better. Having Kirk and Spock act like to cocks fight over the Communications officer, and thus lowering Uhura into being a current day "hoe" just so a Honey Boo-boo audience can relate and think it's more realistic is disgusting. Things were written better years ago. Characters were fleshed out, yes with flaws, but they had better depth and in the end were people to look up to. Roddenberry wanted the audience to see a future to look forward to showing that good standards survived through the years and that human beings improved and evolved. Bring down these characters and making them more of today's lower standards is missing the point. Then again that is something that has corrupted films now for a good 20 years. Stories from the Bible have been given the sleaze treatment. Angels drink, curse, fight like ghetto trash and even have sex with women - yet are not considered fallen?! Superman was given a bastard son, lies and now snaps necks. So why shouldn't futuristic characters meant to be models to aspire to, in a way of life where achievements are considered hard work for all and not racial curves to lower standards for the sake of political correctness - is it any wonder why when these attributes are subtracted from the original equation quality lacks and those who can miss what was originally intended be insulted, and not like the reboot?
It a matter of fallen standards, quality and talent given to produce fodder for an audience who is only reflecting what shines off the screen; and what has sadly become the norm for generation that steps up with acceptance to a trough.

Kirk had a bastard son. Kirk used to pork every woman he came across and ditch her as soon as the respective mission was over. Roddenberry was a notorious fan of the casting couch. He cheated on both his wives. And despite the credit he's given for his enlightened sexual politics, the old show was rife with sexism. Hell, the whole Khan takeover happened because a grown woman acted like a fourteen-year-old who'd just met Justin Bieber.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by ditcin

Simple, it sucks. I'm not a Star Trek fan at all but when I watched the "reboot" it simply sucked. Stupid. When I saw that the ships engine room looks more like basement with more plumbing than a water purifying facility I realized the level and lack of creativity being shoved in my face. It's probably because I'm am older and have seen much better films in my lifetime by better producers, writers and directors. I don't blame the actors because they are looking for a paycheck. I can't blame the studio because they simply want the franchise to go on to make for money. Good taste and talent is a things almost gone from movies today so trash has become the norm. Most viewer's don't even know the difference - when you're brought up drinking dirty water you know nothing else. Updated something just bring it down to a lower standard is not reworking it for the better. Having Kirk and Spock act like to cocks fight over the Communications officer, and thus lowering Uhura into being a current day "hoe" just so a Honey Boo-boo audience can relate and think it's more realistic is disgusting. Things were written better years ago. Characters were fleshed out, yes with flaws, but they had better depth and in the end were people to look up to. Roddenberry wanted the audience to see a future to look forward to showing that good standards survived through the years and that human beings improved and evolved. Bring down these characters and making them more of today's lower standards is missing the point. Then again that is something that has corrupted films now for a good 20 years. Stories from the Bible have been given the sleaze treatment. Angels drink, curse, fight like ghetto trash and even have sex with women - yet are not considered fallen?! Superman was given a bastard son, lies and now snaps necks. So why shouldn't futuristic characters meant to be models to aspire to, in a way of life where achievements are considered hard work for all and not racial curves to lower standards for the sake of political correctness - is it any wonder why when these attributes are subtracted from the original equation quality lacks and those who can miss what was originally intended be insulted, and not like the reboot?
It a matter of fallen standards, quality and talent given to produce fodder for an audience who is only reflecting what shines off the screen; and what has sadly become the norm for generation that steps up with acceptance to a trough.

[benbess]

I'm a long-time fan who likes parts of new Trek, but I do have some problems with it that have been mentioned.

The destruction of Vulcan and seemingly of the whole Prime Star Trek universe is one of the things that bugs me. I actually don't think Prime Trek was destroyed. Since this is sci fi, it's just an alternate time-line/alternate reality.

Bringing back Khan was a mixed bag, but really more bad than good. And Khan's "superblood" brings dead things back to life? OK....

The FX of the new show are cool. The set design (aside from the brewery-engine room) is also well done imho. It's a nice "heavily armored Apple Store" as the real trailer says. The chemistry between the new cast is good too.

Making Kirk into more of a frat boy doesn't work as well for me as Kirk Prime. Shatner will always be the Kirk that I prefer.

[benbess]

This honest trailer is funny, but it does make some points....

Honest Trailers - Star Trek Into Darkness (Feat. HISHE) - YouTube