Why are Star Trek fans so bitter about the reboot?

[jbloggs]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

maybe not but there again, you can't use that as an excuse to do something bad. Besides protomatter never changed the universe, the blood has now eliminated death. That's part of the issue - they make decisions without thinking them through and what the results would be. Does anyone think making Kirk the captain of the Enterprise at the end of the first film makes any sense at all? Never mind he just graduated the Academy and has now leaped over everyone else, you were just going to kick him out but instead you promote him? Great way to feed the ego of an already arrogant person.

And it isn't tunnel vision or I don't like it so it isn't real Trek - if you like it, great but that doesn't mean I have to. The people who do like it are just as closed minded as they say we are - "oh, he just doesn't like change", etc are pretty common responses when we say we don't like it. Are they fun popcorn movies? Sure, tons of action and fun but that doesn't make them good movies. And part of it is like Yojimbo68 said - no character development. Why are Kirk and Spock friends? Because they have to be since it is Trek. If they were friends, Kirk wouldn't have been surprised by Spock's report, he would have expected it. But because Kirk is now generic 80's punk, he gets mad.

In the end it all comes down to individual taste but what I see is you can make changes but eventually those changes catch up with you. Look at Doctor Who - each doctor is different but it is clearly the same character and show. What if they suddenly decided to make the Doctor American, turn the TARDIS into a car and turn him into this badass? Is it still Doctor Who? It is only a couple small changes. That is what I am seeing here - on the surface it is the same but the changes are starting to take away what made Star Trek Star Trek and are turning these into just another sci-fi action film.

Yeah, I agree. They should have given the Captaincy to the Green chick due to Affirmative Action. I think the green chick should file a law suit.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by benbess

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.

I've found just about every other Wacky YouTube Parody (Everything Wrong With, How It Should Have Ended) sinks into lame immature disgruntled-fan jokes, but the Honest Trailers....generally hit every nail on the head. With a sledgehammer, yes, but we're counting for accuracy here.
Satire is just Brutal Honesty, with timing.

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

Does anyone think making Kirk the captain of the Enterprise at the end of the first film makes any sense at all? Never mind he just graduated the Academy and has now leaped over everyone else, you were just going to kick him out but instead you promote him? Great way to feed the ego of an already arrogant person.

(C'mon, JJ, if you're going to quote every Wrath of Khan line Because You Can, couldn't we at least have had Pike at the end of the first movie give Kirk "a commendation for original thinking" to pardon his test-cheating?)

Originally Posted by jbloggs

Yeah, I agree. They should have given the Captaincy to the Green chick due to Affirmative Action.

What, Orion girls? Not if SF knew what Captain Archer found out about them...

(And at least we now have an alternate universe where Kirk actually DID "make it with a green-skinned alien female". As every fan knows, he never did with either of the two in the original show. Shatner-Kirk's taste was more for those in blond ponytails and diaphanous Greek gowns.)

Originally Posted by Blu Lemmy

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

Yes, First Contact was, wasn't it?

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!

I...HATED DS9 when it was on the air, and we all had to be subjected to its weekly existence, albeit not with the passion most of us reserved for Voyager for the same reasons.

Then, years later, with only Abrams' franchise as an alternative, I'd finished up Enterprise and started Netflixing DS9 as a weekly chaser, and will back up everything fans have already said: It is darker, stays in one place to concentrate on characters and story arcs more, and has a grittier sense of Starfleet tensions and conspiracies. Although granted, Quark and Odo steal every episode, by being the two characters usually above the intrigue with their own personal eccentricities.

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

Look at Doctor Who - each doctor is different but it is clearly the same character and show. What if they suddenly decided to make the Doctor American, turn the TARDIS into a car and turn him into this badass? Is it still Doctor Who? It is only a couple small changes.

Yeah, and what if they decided to pitch it to a female audience, make the Companion the central character, portray the Doctor as a "dream date", and give up his childish Holmes-like odd ways to basically go "time-clubbing" in the coolest dimensional hot-spots?

(Oh, wait... )

[Nightrunner]

with a new time line comes great possibilities. maybe after 6 films they will switch up and give us a alternate ST TNG time line?

maybe the next director will want to have a futuristic engine room? Or maybe dress up the engine room with some pieces from the bridge? that may give it the appearance that they are actually in/on the Enterprise.

[Samus Aran]

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!

DS9 gave more depth to their many recurring characters than Harry Kim, Chakotay, Tuvok, etc. got in seven seasons, or Travis Mayweather got in four.

[i007spectre]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Yeah, and what if they decided to pitch it to a female audience, make the Companion the central character, portray the Doctor as a "dream date", and give up his childish Holmes-like odd ways to basically go "time-clubbing" in the coolest dimensional hot-spots?

(Oh, wait... )

My thumbs up is for this.

[hendersd]

Reboots and remakes these days usually mean adding jet fuel to a proven model, which didn't originally run on jet fuel. The remake of The Haunting is a good example. I *knew* what they were gonna do when I heard about the plan. Jet fuel (in most cases a faster pace and over reliance on CGI) was doused all over the story, in effect totally destroying that which made the original so good. So this is all to be expected. The common denominator always wins. It's enjoyable on a visceral level, but usually not very *nourishing* in the long run. The casting is decent though the characterizations have become caricatures. The captain is even more of an ass than he was when Shatner played him. LOL. And I have to admit that, even though it was kind of a smart plot update, seeing Spock getting all kissy face with Uhura just seemed really out of canon. They do things out of canon and then toss in a throw-away line like: "Bones, what are you doing with that Tribble", as if offering a bone to the Roddenberry fans. My favorite science fiction trope has always been the awe of confronting the unknown. That was a frequent plot device in TOS. So far, the reboot has just been "cops and robbers".

[Rixx]

Originally Posted by sandman slim

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.

No, Paramount have the movies. CBS has the TV series and I think they have licensed that to Netflix in the US

[AaronJ]

People who are saying that nu-Kirk is "more of an ass" than TOS-Kirk either haven't seen many TOS episodes lately, or have a different definition of "ass" than I do.

TOS-Kirk would have been not only stripped of his command, but put in the brig indefinitely EVERY. SINGLE. EPISODE. The number of times he violated the Prime Directive alone is astronomical.

[benbess]

Star Trek Into Darkness was the most successful Trek movie ever at the box office. But at a production cost of about $190 million, it was also by far the most expensive Star Trek movie ever made.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture was scandalous back in 1979 because of its colossal cost overruns. But the c. $40 million dollar cost, when adjusted for inflation, would be about $130 million today. I bet Paramount wishes they could make the next Trek movie for that amount of money!

The original Star Trek series had a baseline production budget of about $200,000 per episode back in 1966. It was, in fact, one of the most expensive hour-long TV show at the time. Some episodes cost a more, while some were less. Two of the most expensive were Where No Man Has Gone Before at $355k, and City on the Edge of Forever at $245k. But episodes like The Conscience of the King at $185k helped balance things out.

Even adjusting $200,000 for inflation you only get about $1.5 million in today's dollars. It's unlikely you could make a TV show for that amount these days. Most of the stars of the original show, with the exception of Shatner, were making very modest paychecks, which helped to hold down costs.

Anyway, even adjusted for inflation the whole of the original series (80 episodes) cost about $120 million in today's money.

In one movie, JJ Abrams blew waaaay past that.

Into Darkness was a success, but it was so expensive I'm not sure it made a big profit. It's not clear that spending an almost Star Wars level of money on Star Trek really made sense. Star Trek is a very successful brand of entertainment, but it's never going to perform at the level of Star Wars.

But I do hope that if a new TV show ever happens they get ambitious and spend something extra on it. I don't imagine they'd ever get the lavish budget that Game of Thrones gets, which costs c. $7 million an episode. But even $5 million per show would allow them to get closer to a "mini movie" with each Star Trek episode.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by jbloggs

Yeah, I agree. They should have given the Captaincy to the Green chick due to Affirmative Action. I think the green chick should file a law suit.

Damn right - always looking at them as nothing more than a sex object, not giving them thier own command. I say give her a ship, and a reality show - Captains gone wild?

Iron-Fisted Punk/i007spectre, I know what you mean about it being a growth arc but it is also very shortsighted writing - this isn't their first mission together. They are Starfleet, Kirk should expect Spock to file a proper report as Starfleet expected Kirk to. If this took place right after the last film, then you could expect it but it doesn't. This goes back to why Kirk shouldn't have been given command - he wasn't mature enough to handle it. Look at how he acted in the 2009 film - did they really expect him to change when they gave him command? Nice they admitted in the film that giving him command was a bad idea but that doesn't make it okay. How many lives did his "growth" cost? It would be an interesting arc if it wasn't so easily avoidable in the first place with a little common sense - don't give your best ship to someone you were about to kick out of school! That is horrible storytelling and goes against what we already know about Starfleet from Enterprise - look at the fight they had to give Archer a ship yet 100 years later they just hand them out? And that is supposed to be a common event in both universes.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

People who are saying that nu-Kirk is "more of an ass" than TOS-Kirk either haven't seen many TOS episodes lately, or have a different definition of "ass" than I do.

TOS-Kirk would have been not only stripped of his command, but put in the brig indefinitely EVERY. SINGLE. EPISODE. The number of times he violated the Prime Directive alone is astronomical.

Well, sort of. Shatner's Kirk took big risks, and enjoyed himself, but somehow it wasn't played quite like the grown up frat boy that Pine's Kirk seems like once-in-a-while.

But you have a point. They are both reckless and over-the-top captains.

In Star Trek VI Kirk is put on trial, and he is accurately described by Klingon General Chang (wonderfully played by Christopher Plummer) as a reckless captain who takes matters into his own hands whenever it pleases him. Shatner's Kirk admits it.

"'James Tiberius Kirk... What would your favorite author say Captain? Let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings. Tell us your sad story Kirk, Tell us how you planned to take revenge for the death of you son...."

CHANG: "....This officer's record shows him to be an insubordinate, unprincipled, career-minded opportunist with a history of violating the chain of command whenever it suited him.
KLINGON JUDGE: Continue.
CHANG: Indeed the record shows that Captain Kirk once held the rank of Admiral and that Admiral Kirk was broken for taking matters into his own hands in defiance of regulations and the law. Do you deny you were demoted for these charges, Captain? Don't wait for the translation. Answer me now!
KIRK: I cannot deny it.
CHANG: You were demoted.
KIRK: Yes.
CHANG: For insubordination.
KIRK: On occasion, I have disobeyed orders.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by benbess

Star Trek: The Motion Picture was scandalous back in 1979 because of its colossal cost overruns.
In one movie, JJ Abrams blew waaaay past that.

So, we went from Robert Wise who had never seen the show in his life, and tried to turn it into 2001 on Slo speed, to JJ Abrams who lives to show us how many Khan lines he remembers from 1982, at the expense of plot, logic and canon.

Granted, one was easier to sit through, but I see that as more of a lateral move between two extremes.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

Does anyone think making Kirk the captain of the Enterprise at the end of the first film makes any sense at all? Never mind he just graduated the Academy and has now leaped over everyone else, you were just going to kick him out but instead you promote him? Great way to feed the ego of an already arrogant person.

He didn't even graduate. He was still in school and got suspended right before the Narada attacked Vulcan.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by benbess

Well, sort of. Shatner's Kirk took big risks, and enjoyed himself, but somehow it wasn't played quite like the grown up frat boy that Pine's Kirk seems like once-in-a-while.

But you have a point. They are both reckless and over-the-top captains.

In Star Trek VI Kirk is put on trial, and he is accurately described by Klingon General Chang (wonderfully played by Christopher Plummer) as a reckless captain who takes matters into his own hands whenever it pleases him. Shatner's Kirk admits it.

"'James Tiberius Kirk... What would your favorite author say Captain? Let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings. Tell us your sad story Kirk, Tell us how you planned to take revenge for the death of you son...."

CHANG: "....This officer's record shows him to be an insubordinate, unprincipled, career-minded opportunist with a history of violating the chain of command whenever it suited him.
KLINGON JUDGE: Continue.
CHANG: Indeed the record shows that Captain Kirk once held the rank of Admiral and that Admiral Kirk was broken for taking matters into his own hands in defiance of regulations and the law. Do you deny you were demoted for these charges, Captain? Don't wait for the translation. Answer me now!
KIRK: I cannot deny it.
CHANG: You were demoted.
KIRK: Yes.
CHANG: For insubordination.
KIRK: On occasion, I have disobeyed orders.

Great scene. Damn, I love that scene.

But I was watching ST:ID just a while ago, and the scene with Pike and Kirk in the bar, Kirk knows damned well he effed up. He wasn't willing to let his friend, Spock, die. And Pike knows it too. But it's not like Kirk's some drunken frat ass. He knows what he did. He admits to what he did.

Kirk did what he did because he wanted to save his friend. Spock told him that it broke the rules, but he didn't care. He'd deal with the consequences later, but at least his friend would be alive.

What I'm trying to say is that the Kirk in that sequence is NOT the Kirk that people are describing.

Originally Posted by EricJ

So, we went from Robert Wise who had never seen the show in his life, and tried to turn it into 2001 on Slo speed, to JJ Abrams who lives to show us how many Khan lines he remembers from 1982, at the expense of plot, logic and canon.

Granted, one was easier to sit through, but I see that as more of a lateral move between two extremes.

No. Any other questions?

[Iron-Fisted Punk]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

He didn't even graduate. He was still in school and got suspended right before the Narada attacked Vulcan.

It's hard to understand why they'd do this, I agree. One way to look at it: their fleet was sort of destroyed by Nero right? Short on ships, short on captains. Also, Pike's personal vote of confidence. Not a great argument, but that's all I got for now. I'm sure they were processing recruits a lot faster after Nero.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

He didn't even graduate. He was still in school and got suspended right before the Narada attacked Vulcan.

Oh even better, give command to a dropout!

benbess, want to know something really funny though - when you adjust for inflation, the 2009 movie makes only $15 million more than TMP while Into Darkness drops to 4th making only about $4 more than Wrath of Khan so really, it isn't like these movies are making a ton more money than the old films.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchi...d=startrek.htm
But look at budget vs return - TMP made over 3 times back its budget while the JJ films are making about 2.5. Wrath of Khan made something like 7 or 8 times its budget! Granted not all the films did as good but really these films are only average in returns - most of the films did at least 2.5(I think even 5 did). The only reason the box office is so good is because tickets cost more now.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

The only reason the box office is so good is because tickets cost more now.

Exactly. If we're comparing apples to apples, STID made less money than ST09 in the US even with 3D surcharges.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

....and the scene with Pike and Kirk in the bar, Kirk knows damned well he effed up. He wasn't willing to let his friend, Spock, die. And Pike knows it too. But it's not like Kirk's some drunken frat ass. He knows what he did. He admits to what he did.

Kirk did what he did because he wanted to save his friend. Spock told him that it broke the rules, but he didn't care. He'd deal with the consequences later, but at least his friend would be alive.

What I'm trying to say is that the Kirk in that sequence is NOT the Kirk that people are describing.....

I think you're right about that scene.

Perhaps what I was thinking of was the scene with the alien lady, or maybe the scene in the bar in the first one.

Shatner's Kirk was all for romancing the ladies, but he had a little more style about it, I think. And often he was romancing them as part of the diplomatic mission!

But actually I like Pine's Kirk in STID. And I esp. like how he finally listens to Spock about the torpedoes. When your boss is an admiral who orders you to remotely take out a terrorist, especially in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, you can imagine maybe agreeing to it. But you can see the wheels turning in Kirk's head in that movie as he thinks about it, and ultimately it's his friendship with Spock—and his trust of Spock's judgement and morality—that allows him to call off the torpedo attack.

OK. I'm going to put an unpopular view out there. I feel mixed about both of the new Star Trek films, but actually I think I may like STID better than the first one.....Hmmmm.

[peckinpah]

Originally Posted by benbess

But I do hope that if a new TV show ever happens they get ambitious and spend something extra on it. I don't imagine they'd ever get the lavish budget that Game of Thrones gets, which costs c. $7 million an episode. But even $5 million per show would allow them to get closer to a "mini movie" with each Star Trek episode.

Realistically, what would the audience be for a new series? Would it be large enough to justify that sort of expense?

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Iron-Fisted Punk

It's hard to understand why they'd do this, I agree.

Maybe they took into consideration that Thor was his dad.