Why are Star Trek fans so bitter about the reboot?

[Blu Lemmy]

Originally Posted by sandman slim

I've been a fan since the '70s, and I loved the reboot. The only problem I have with new Trek is that Into Darkness seems kinda pointless. I mean, it was a good movie and I liked it, but what's the point of rebooting the series and then spending $200 million to remake something we've seen already? Going forward, I want to see them do new things, new worlds, new villians. I don't need to see Q again, and the Borg again, and Best of Both Worlds again. Merely remaking stories we've already seen just shows a complete lack of imagination.

Also, I don't really see the point of Trek existing as only one two-hour movie every four years. It's long past time Paramount started a Trek network. They have thousands of hours of programming already available, and being the only place to watch episodes of a new Trek series would be all the incentive most of us would need to subscribe. Four new series airing in thirteen week blocks would keep new material on the air year-round, and even at a cost of $3 million per episode, it would cost less than one new movie. A failed movie is a disaster for a studio; a failed episode is forgotten when the new one airs a week later.

Although a battle between the Borg and Starfleet using todays SFX would be epic.....just saying

[jbloggs]

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!

Thanks. I may just do that if it's available on Netflix or Amazon Prime

[captaincarl]

I love Star Trek but I do understand all the grips many have with the reboot. Having said that I can't get enough of the new cast and the new movies. I enjoy them just as much as the classic Trek episodes and through all the works that have continued since. The more Trek the merrier in my book.

If you classify me as a fanboy so be it. When it boils down to it we watch these movies and want to enjoy them.....I'm just a bit easier to please.

Same goes for Star Wars!

Cheers,
CC-

[peckinpah]

Originally Posted by captaincarl

I love Star Trek but I do understand all the grips many have with the reboot. Having said that I can't get enough of the new cast and the new movies. I enjoy them just as much as the classic Trek episodes and through all the works that have continued since. The more Trek the merrier in my book.

If you classify me as a fanboy so be it. When it boils down to it we watch these movies and want to enjoy them.....I'm just a bit easier to please.

Same goes for Star Wars!

Cheers,
CC-

Quit being reasonable!

[benbess]

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.

Actually, TOS was often much less blindly optimistic than some people know or recall—including maybe even a few Trek fans. Here are a few original Star Trek episodes that are rather grim in places: (I won't say why or how to avoid spoilers)

Balance of Terror
What Are Little Girls Made Of? (written by Robert Bloch, author of Psycho)
The Conscience of the King
The Menagerie
Arena
A Taste for Armageddon (which I just found out was in part inspired by the development of the neutron bomb)
Space Seed
The City on the Edge of Forever
Operation: Annihilate!
etc.

And that's just some of them from the first season.

But I think I get your point. Roddenberry at his best could be a wonderfully visionary as well as practical TV producer. But in his last years ill-health, and maybe reading too much of his own press clippings, made his overly idealistic view of Star Trek into a liability. To give a short example, he couldn't see the point of the classic Next Gen episode The Measure of a Man, because in the future things were so perfect there wouldn't be any lawyers—and Data would cheerfully volunteer to be dismantled in any case! Thank goodness the other producers ignored him there.

But I agree with you in liking the grim themes in STID. And it's not just Khan. It's even more section 31 and Admiral Marcus.

[blonde_devil]

Simple answer - crappy storytelling and style over substance. I was excited when they decided to do the reboot. Sure I was concerned as this wasn't Bond where the character was there before the actor, Shatner, Nimoy and the cast help create them so seeing different actors playing them would be weird but I was more than willing to give it a chance. I wanted Trek to finally get a big budget film that fans and nonfans loved. But I ran into the problem right away that in it was just a poorly made film. Sure it looks all nice and shiny but actually pay attention to the story and you start to realise just how poorly written it is. There is the tech boy side of me that looks at things like the Enterprise design and how aweful it looks or who says "what's the different between autopilot or just telling the computer to plot a course" and dislikes it but there is also the fan who looks at things like that idiot jumping to the platform with Kirk and Sulu so seems to have a death wish and succeeds in it(how did he ever get through Starfleet) or Kirk getting command at the end and goes "but that makes no sense". And the plotholes - oh the plotholes. People like to point out that the original movies had plotholes and they are right but that is no excuse for the ones in the JJ films. Plus at least then we were seeing the original actors so you had something instead of here where you have no real attachment.

I haven't watched all of Into Darkness but I know the issue right away - why use Khan if he isn't really Khan. Khan is a very specific character like Vader and they did a really good job of screwing him up. Plus all the same issues that the 2009 film had. I watched the first 10 minutes just to be fair and will not watch the rest now because of the stupidity in it - Kirk stuns their ride, the Enterprise under water, neither the shuttle or the Enterprise can get close enough to the volcano to rescue Spock due to the heat yet he isn't instantly fried when he falls into it. And why is the communications officer going on that mission to begin with? Oh right, because she is dating Spock so they can have a moment together before his mission. Again none of it makes sense and that isn't even the main story yet. I would call it fan fiction but it isn't even that. It isn't that this is something new and different, it isn't that I am old and not willing to change as I have followed Trek through all its various forms and was generally okay with it - it is just bad stories.

The other issue I have is the hype - JJ didn't save Trek. It wasn't nearly a decade between the modern Trek ending and this film, his film came out a little over 6 years after Nemesis - the first motion picture was a decade after TOS ended so it is a while but not that unusual. Trek wasn't dead during that time - CBS/Paramount did a major restructuring during that time and since Trek is both a tv and movie property, it caused major delays while they sorted all that out. There were projects in the works but none happened because of that. And it wasn't like JJ was the only one interested in Trek - there were tons of ideas out there including one from Bryan Singer which is pretty well known. Trek wasn't this dead worthless franchise that no one wanted and JJ came in and fixed it up, it was taking a breather like it needed to but everyone seems to make it sound like Trek was dead and buried and JJ worked his magic to make it cool again. A friend of mine who doesn't watch Trek but did watch and like the 2009 movie came with me to see Best of Both Worlds last year when it was in the theatre - he was blown away by it and actually said it was better than the 2009 movie. A 25 year old episode with a tv budget is better than the JJ film? And this is a nonfan - the very people who the JJ film is supposed to appeal to. That should speak volumes about this.

I can't speak for anyone other than myself but those are the issues I have have and any fans of Star Wars better be worried too because I see the same things happening with it as I saw with Trek. End of essay.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by peckinpah

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.

Problem is people miss the point - Roddenberry's whole idea of Trek was that we improved to make the universe that wonderful place. It isn't like he is blindly saying that the universe will just get better and we are along for the ride, we worked to improve outselves and make the universe a better place by not giving into those childish things. It is like Kirk says in one episode - there is savagery in us but all we can do is say "I will not kill today" and live up to that for today. That was the appeal - not that things will get better but that we will get better.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

Problem is people miss the point - Roddenberry's whole idea of Trek was that we improved to make the universe that wonderful place. It isn't like he is blindly saying that the universe will just get better and we are along for the ride, we worked to improve outselves and make the universe a better place by not giving into those childish things. It is like Kirk says in one episode - there is savagery in us but all we can do is say "I will not kill today" and live up to that for today. That was the appeal - not that things will get better but that we will get better.

That's all fine and dandy. But we aren't the only ones in the galaxy. That's what Q was trying to show Picard by sending him out to the edge, into Borg territory. Picard had begun to "believe humanity's press" and had become arrogant as a result.

[Iron-Fisted Punk]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

I watched the first 10 minutes just to be fair

That's not really being fair...

[Ray O. Blu]

"Why are Star Trek fans so bitter about the reboot?"

They're actually not bitter about the reboot, at all.
They just don't know how to properly express their deep-seated frustration about still being a nerdy virgin when there are so many hot human women on Earth.
They simply lash out at anything they're not accustomed to. Like non-alien members of the opposite sex and alternate storylines.

[Show spoiler]It's stereotype humor. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, wear sandals.

[ilovenola2]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Well, I'm a Trek fan from all the way back to the 70s and the original series. I've seen everything multiple times.

I like the reboot. I really enjoyed the 2009 film, and I think Into Darkness could have been better, but it was still a good movie.

So there. Now you've met one person.

And another here!! I liked them as well.

And this senior can make you all jealous because I actually spent a day on the set of the Star Trek original series-- second season, "Catspaw."

[peckinpah]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

Problem is people miss the point - Roddenberry's whole idea of Trek was that we improved to make the universe that wonderful place. It isn't like he is blindly saying that the universe will just get better and we are along for the ride, we worked to improve outselves and make the universe a better place by not giving into those childish things. It is like Kirk says in one episode - there is savagery in us but all we can do is say "I will not kill today" and live up to that for today. That was the appeal - not that things will get better but that we will get better.

The idea that humanity will one day join hands and perform a mass rendition of "Kumbaya" strikes me as extremely naive. It's one thing to hope it will happen, but it's quite another to say that we'll magically (and inexplicably) be there in a couple hundred years. Roddenberry's future works only if humanity has been able to toss aside human nature, and that moves past optimism into straight-up silly.

Which leads me to this: One of the biggest problems with TOS is its lack of change. The characters were set in stone from the get-go, and nothing that happened to them affected them in any way. Edith Keeler's death should have been a major event in Kirk's life, but Roddenberry wouldn't allow any such thing, so it's roll credits and see ya next week. The future it depicts is too emotionally sterile for its own good, and it's hard to take what it has to say seriously when the setting is fairy-tale unbelievable. And I know that sort of continuity-based storytelling wasn't done in television back then, but that doesn't make the show's ignorance of its own week-to-week happenings any more palatable.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by peckinpah

The future it depicts is too emotionally sterile for its own good

This is what's always been the hardest part of Trek for me. The whole thing, especially TNG and on, is so cold and emotionless that it's hard to get into it. That's where the new film series has worked very well - they allow general audiences to understand and sympathize with the characters and universe.

[peckinpah]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

That's all fine and dandy. But we aren't the only ones in the galaxy. That's what Q was trying to show Picard by sending him out to the edge, into Borg territory. Picard had begun to "believe humanity's press" and had become arrogant as a result.

Yep. There's a (largely unacknowledged) vein of the ol' white man's burden running through Roddenberry's Trek. The fact that his successors chose to point it out likely had him spinning in his grave.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by Iron-Fisted Punk

That's not really being fair...

I have seen various clips as well so I it isn't like I am using just 10 minutes to judge a 2 hour movie. How about Kirk being mad at Spcok for selling him out to Stafleet? A vulcan wouldn't file a bad report, shouldn't Kirk know that? Or the miracle blood? I try and gives movies a fair shot but after seeing the 2009 movie, all I needed to see was 10 minutes of Into Darkness to know it was the same thing.

AaronJ, I get what you mean and agree with you - that creates good drama. But people who don't like the show like to use the optimism as an excuse without realising that the optimism came at a price and wasn't just handed to them. It isn't the 1960's "all we are saying is give peace a chance" hippy stuff that people seem to think it is, it came at the expence of millions of lives and realising that if you want to survive, you need to do better. The universe became a better place because humanity finally started to grow up. And in the shows "reality", even Picard agreed that meeting the borg was probably a good thing for the Federation as it reminded them that there are bigger and badder things out there that they are not ready for but they didn't automatically turn all dark and warlike because of it either like Into Darkness. There is a difference between being prepared and going overboard.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by peckinpah

Which leads me to this: One of the biggest problems with TOS is its lack of change. The characters were set in stone from the get-go, and nothing that happened to them affected them in any way. Edith Keeler's death should have been a major event in Kirk's life, but Roddenberry wouldn't allow any such thing, so it's roll credits and see ya next week. The future it depicts is too emotionally sterile for its own good, and it's hard to take what it has to say seriously when the setting is fairy-tale unbelievable. And I know that sort of continuity-based storytelling wasn't done in television back then, but that doesn't make the show's ignorance of its own week-to-week happenings any more palatable.

Blame 60's tv for that - TNG has the same issues because it was syndicated. But they did acknowledge things when they could - the borg abducting Picard was used in several episdoes later on, Worf and his honor, etc.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

I have seen various clips as well so I it isn't like I am using just 10 minutes to judge a 2 hour movie. How about Kirk being mad at Spcok for selling him out to Stafleet? A vulcan wouldn't file a bad report, shouldn't Kirk know that? Or the miracle blood? I try and gives movies a fair shot but after seeing the 2009 movie, all I needed to see was 10 minutes of Into Darkness to know it was the same thing.

Well, Kirk is young, new, a bit of a narcissist. And Spock isn't wholly Vulcan either. It doesn't surprise me that Kirk would feel that way, or use that as an excuse to attack Spock's characters.

AaronJ, I get what you mean and agree with you - that creates good drama. But people who don't like the show like to use the optimism as an excuse without realising that the optimism came at a price and wasn't just handed to them. It isn't the 1960's "all we are saying is give peace a chance" hippy stuff that people seem to think it is, it came at the expence of millions of lives and realising that if you want to survive, you need to do better. The universe became a better place because humanity finally started to grow up. And in the shows "reality", even Picard agreed that meeting the borg was probably a good thing for the Federation as it reminded them that there are bigger and badder things out there that they are not ready for but they didn't automatically turn all dark and warlike because of it either like Into Darkness. There is a difference between being prepared and going overboard.

Right. But Picard had be shown that reality. Because the reality in which he was living was not reality.

And I don't think that "Into Darkness" goes overboard. Whether it's a good movie or not, that's a different question. But it isn't like Kirk orders the destruction of half the galaxy just because he's bored one day.

Also, let's be realistic. This is meant as a franchise in the second decade of the 21st century. They simply couldn't get away with the sort of characterization of humanity and the sort of storytelling that some people seem to want in this day and age.

I think Abrams & Co. hit a good balance. Whether they executed it well, that's up to each of us individual viewers. But they didn't turn the Federation and the characters into blood-thirsty sociopaths. But they also didn't make it all about, "Oooh, look how much better we are than we used to be!" It's a balance.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Iron-Fisted Punk

That's not really being fair...

The first half of Star Trek Into Darkness was better than the second half imho, but I agree that just watching 10 minutes doesn't seem fair.

But watching all of it probably wouldn't change that person's mind if he or she is already convinced they're going to hate it.

In any case, one of the things I really like about the first half of STID is that it—like a lot of Star Trek of the last 50 years—tackles a contemporary political issue.

[Show spoiler]As people who've watched the movie know, in the beginning Admiral Marcus orders Kirk to take out Khan remotely with special torpedoes. Spock objects to killing even a terrorist with remote photon torpedo "drones," and....well, you know the rest. The parallel with some current events is something Star Trek has done from the beginning. In the episode Balance of Terror, for instance, from 1966, there is a battle to the death in a future cold war in space, with the Neutral Zone somewhat similar to the DMZ in Korea—or maybe it's a little like the Iron Curtain in Europe at the time.

[Yojimbo68]

I personally think that Kirk and Spock are not realized very well in the reboots. The history of Kirk in TOS is that he has a very bookish almost nerd in this Starfleet academy days, not a brooding James Dean type riding a motorcycle. (The flip side with TNG is that Picard was a wild man in his Starfleet days.) And Spock shows way too much emotion in the reboots. The great thing about Spock in TOS is that his emotion is subtext submerged behind "total logic". I laughed when I put on the Blu-ray of Into Darkness and saw the menu board. It has Spock running at full sprint with rage! That is so not Spock IMHO. And that Spock/Uhura relationship is going nowhere fast. I did enjoy the first reboot with some reservations as noted above but Into Darkness is a sloppy remake of the first reboot with some not so clever "twists" thrown in. It just degenerates into a run, jump and shoot action movie. Star Trek can be so much more..

[PrestigeWorldwide]

Another trek fan that's not bitter about the reboot. The movies are fun, but I consider these new movies to be "popcorn" Star Trek - pretty much Michael Bay's version of Trek - high on flash and low on substance. Would much rather the focus be on characters and exploration.

Not worried about the new Star Wars movies since I think JJ is a much better fit for SW than ST. It can't be any worse than Episodes 1 & 2.