Why are Star Trek fans so bitter about the reboot?

[AaronJ]

Oh, also, for those people complaining about the new/alternate/whatever timeline, they almost HAD to do that.

In ST-Prime timeline, this is early-TOS era. So, when it comes right down to it, we all know how everything turns out in the big picture. It takes a LOT of stuff off the table.

With the new/alt/whatever timeline, now ANYTHING can happen. Maybe the Federation and the Cardassians end up allies against some outside force, and there is no war. Maybe Bones dies in the next movie (it won't happen, but you get the idea). Everything is now on the table since it's a different timeline.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by EricJ

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



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.)

Overall, I agree. I liked the first movie as it did a good job establishing the young Kirk and Spock and more Nimoy is always a good thing, but the second movie liked to take interesting ideas and go nowhere with them.

We get to see the Klingon homeworld? Eh, next scene.
Kirk is demoted? Next scene.
Getting a chance to explore the Prime Directive? Next.

The big appeal of Star Trek for me was not only technology and exploration of space and new cultures, but ultimately the examination of the human character. That is what made Data so memorable. Do androids have rights? If the Borg show signs of individuality, can we exterimate them? What is the Klingon culture like? There's also a wealth of political aspects to explore like what was done in DS9. I am watching the original series for the first time and it's suprisingly good.

I realize that movies are ultimately different than TV (and personally Trek is better in TV form than movie form), but you can still have a good story and make events a bit larger than life for the cinema. That is why First Contact is such a good movie. You explore Picard's inner demons more and get to see more about the Borg and first contact with aliens in the same movie. Generations had the really cool idea of the Nexus where people had the dillemma of staying in a place that allowed your every dream to come true but was not real. You also got Picard and Kirk to join forces, and the opening sequence of the movie where Kirk is assumed to be dead still gets me every time. Even Nemesis had a dillema of nature vs. nurture where Picard's clone became bitter and evil due to his upbringing. It had a lot of action for action's sake and could have been improved upon, but I liked the ideas that they were exploring and the fact that it was different.

You'd think by now that with established franchises you can take some risks without worrying too much as there is a fan base that will support it financially. The Bourne movies showed that action movies can have story and character, and Skyfall and Casino Royale showed that a long-running series can get away from an ever increasing trend of all action and no story.

I haven't seen any of the original Trek films but they sound interesting (at least the odd numbered ones )

[stvn1974]

Not bitter but I think they are terrible films and even worse Star Trek films. I love the Original Series and the Original Crew films and to me the Abrams films don't feel like Star Trek. The biggest complaint I have is how Spock is written. In the reboot films he is bi-polar and not even anywhere near how Vulcans are in the series and films before. Star Trek Into Darkness is just one dumb scene after another. It reminds me of the Nolan Dark Knight films. Let's do this because it will look or seem cool but make no freaking sense.

Now that Orci is directing I feel it is going to get even worse so I won't be seeing it. I still have my three seasons of the Original Series on BD and hopefully the directors cuts will be restored and released. I guess that is all the Star Trek I need.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

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

THINK!

Most fans thought of these ideas long before the honest trailer. It's just a shorthand.

[geekesmind]

not bitter on it just sick of them coming out with a special edition blu-ray every fall. I am not triple dipping on star trek 2009 or double dipping on star trek into the darkness. Just not doing it.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Oh, also, for those people complaining about the new/alternate/whatever timeline, they almost HAD to do that.

In ST-Prime timeline, this is early-TOS era. So, when it comes right down to it, we all know how everything turns out in the big picture. It takes a LOT of stuff off the table.

With the new/alt/whatever timeline, now ANYTHING can happen. Maybe the Federation and the Cardassians end up allies against some outside force, and there is no war. Maybe Bones dies in the next movie (it won't happen, but you get the idea). Everything is now on the table since it's a different timeline.

Yeah, I admit this is a good point.

I just wish they could have done it without destroying the planet Vulcan. These are probably the most liked and admired aliens in all of Star Trek. And now 99% of them are dead.

But, moving on, maybe they can make an interesting story with that. Maybe the Vulcans and their new home might make an interesting story? Hard to tell.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by benbess

Yeah, I admit this is a good point.

I just wish they could have done it without destroying the planet Vulcan. These are probably the most liked and admired aliens in all of Star Trek. And now 99% of them are dead.

But, moving on, maybe they can make an interesting story with that. Maybe the Vulcans and their new home might make an interesting story? Hard to tell.

No I get that.

You gotta admit, though: You weren't expecting it when you bought your ticket! (If you didn't read spoilers, that is)

[benbess]

It was a total surprise and a shock.

But Nero as a bad guy seemed kind of one-dimensional to me. I know I'm in the minority, but I actually liked Malcolm McDowell's Dr. Tolian Soren from Generations as a bad guy a lot better.

Mixed as I feel about bringing back Khan, I think they did work to give him a more reasonable motivation for what he was doing.

And I think Cumberbatch brought many of his Cumberbi-----, uh, Cumberpeople, with him to the theaters. I liked him better than Nero.

[stvn1974]

In the course of two films Kirk almost gets expelled for cheating, then gets his own ship within a few hours. Then he gets demoted and then dies and brought back to life. In the third film he will be an Admiral and if they do a fourth he will be head of Starfleet. And Spock will still be a whiny *****.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by benbess

It was a total surprise and a shock.

But Nero as a bad guy seemed kind of one-dimensional to me. I know I'm in the minority, but I actually liked Malcolm McDowell's Dr. Tolian Soren from Generations as a bad guy a lot better.

Mixed as I feel about bringing back Khan, I think they did work to give him a more reasonable motivation for what he was doing.

And I think Cumberbatch brought many of his Cumberbi-----, uh, Cumberpeople, with him to the theaters. I liked him better than Nero.

Nero as a villain was definitely the weak link of that film for me. His motivation was sort of cool, but the execution wasn't there -- and I'm not blaming Eric Bana, he's a good actor. He just didn't have a lot to work with.

Originally Posted by stvn1974

In the course of two films Kirk almost gets expelled for cheating, then gets his own ship within a few hours. Then he gets demoted and then dies and brought back to life. In the third film he will be an Admiral and if they do a fourth he will be head of Starfleet. And Spock will still be a whiny *****.

Kirk did that because he's Kirk. That's the way he rolls.

[Lord Method Man]

I like Star Trek (2009) but I really hate Into Darkness. It starts out okay but as it goes on it gets worse and worse until the final act which I cannot even bring myself to watch anymore its so bad.

[peckinpah]

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.

I should've phrased that better. Let me try it again.

Certain fans are okay with that stuff happening in the later series, but try to inject it into any iteration of the original characters and they have a stroke. It's not the sort of thing Roddenberry would have allowed (and if he did it would have ultimately been inconsequential, forgotten as soon as the end credits rolled), so in their minds it shouldn't be allowed. And had Roddenberry not been forced to give up control of the franchise, it's highly unlikely any of it would have been introduced.

To me, what many people see as hopefulness in TOS is really more of a blind naivete. The ugly and messy territory Into Darkness hints at is a lot more interesting and relevant than the heavy-handed moralizing that was Roddenberry's forte. I don't think it's impossible to explore some of the themes old-school fans want to see, but you damn sure can't do so in the hippy-dippy way Roddenberry did.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by peckinpah

I should've phrased that better. Let me try it again.

Certain fans are okay with that stuff happening in the later series, but try to inject it into any iteration of the original characters and they have a stroke. It's not the sort of thing Roddenberry would have allowed (and if he did it would have ultimately been inconsequential, forgotten as soon as the end credits rolled), so in their minds it shouldn't be allowed. And had Roddenberry not been forced to give up control of the franchise, it's highly unlikely any of it would have been introduced.

To me, what many people see as hopefulness in TOS is really more of a blind naivete. The ugly and messy territory Into Darkness hints at is a lot more interesting and relevant than the heavy-handed moralizing that was Roddenberry's forte. I don't think it's impossible to explore some of the themes old-school fans want to see, but you damn sure can't do so in the hippy-dippy way Roddenberry did.

True.

Also, remember though, that TOS went from 66-68. Even if they had WANTED TO attack some of those themes, it never would have made it to the screen. I mean, this was the era of "Lassie" and "Cimmaron" and "Gentle Ben" and "The Flying Nun."

Storylines like the Cardassians employing torture or Section 31 or the Borg eliminating the individuality of the main character, etc. -- those just wouldn't have been allowed anyways.

[Iron-Fisted Punk]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

In the course of two films Kirk almost gets expelled for cheating, then gets his own ship within a few hours. Then he gets demoted and then dies and brought back to life. In the third film he will be an Admiral and if they do a fourth he will be head of Starfleet. And Spock will still be a whiny *****.

One of the problems I had with ST09 is that he became Captain too quickly. He didn't do enough to earn it. The second movie wisely picked up on this and showed how immature he still was at the beginning. Throughout the movie he learned what it truly means to be a captain and by the end, I felt he finally earned it. Great story arc for his character.

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Nero as a villain was definitely the weak link of that film for me. His motivation was sort of cool, but the execution wasn't there -- and I'm not blaming Eric Bana, he's a good actor. He just didn't have a lot to work with.

Bana was AMAZING. Totally disappeared into the part. Not the most three dimensional character sure, but Bana made it work.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Iron-Fisted Punk

Bana was AMAZING. Totally disappeared into the part. Not the most three dimensional character sure, but Bana made it work.

Like I said, I'm not criticizing Bana at all. I think he did everything he could, and did a really good job with what he had to work with. My problem was that I don't think the character was written very well. Or, rather, wasn't written as well as he could have been.

But I'm a Bana fan, and have liked him in pretty much everything I've ever seen him in.

[peckinpah]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

True.

Also, remember though, that TOS went from 66-68. Even if they had WANTED TO attack some of those themes, it never would have made it to the screen. I mean, this was the era of "Lassie" and "Cimmaron" and "Gentle Ben" and "The Flying Nun."

Storylines like the Cardassians employing torture or Section 31 or the Borg eliminating the individuality of the main character, etc. -- those just wouldn't have been allowed anyways.

True, but Roddenberry wouldn't have allowed them in the later series. That stuff happened after he had left TNG (which is arguably the best thing that happened to that series). Roddenberry-controlled TNG was pretty much TOS in new clothes.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by 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.

So what! Some things deserve to die and be left alone. Yes Star Trek gained some new fans but also lost some older ones so its tit for tat...

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by peckinpah

True, but Roddenberry wouldn't have allowed them in the later series. That stuff happened after he had left TNG (which is arguably the best thing that happened to that series). Roddenberry-controlled TNG was pretty much TOS in new clothes.

I agree with both points, yeah.

Originally Posted by Elvis

So what! Some things deserve to die and be left alone.

This, however, I couldn't disagree with more. There's absolutely nothing forcing someone to go see the ST09-era films. I find it hysterical that some people believe that just because they don't like something, the rest of us not only should agree, but shouldn't even get the chance to decide.

Talk about narcism.

[The Fallen Deity]

I like the old Star Trek and I like the new Star Trek.

Both are great imo.

The only negative thing about the new Star Trek imo is those bloody lens flares!

[Dynamo of Eternia]

I'm more of a casual Star Trek fan, mainly of TNG and the original cast movies. I've only seen bits and pieces of the original series (I've picked it up on Blu-Ray, but haven't watched it in full yet).

I thought the first reboot movie was really good. The second one was alright, but I really didn't care for the

[Show spoiler]forced reversal of the Kirk and Spock roles from Wrath of Kahn

. I really thought that they would have been better off just doing something new and original rather than retreading old ground in a slightly different way.