Why are Star Trek fans so bitter about the reboot? - Blu-ray Forum

blu-mike · 06-24-2014, 05:04 AM

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"

AaronJ · 06-24-2014, 05:30 AM

Quote:

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"

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.

Petra_Kalbrain · 06-24-2014, 05:30 AM

Well, I'm a Star Trek fan from the Next Generation era and I love the reboot. I love the original series too, but I only followed that series several years after TNG ended.

But, I can understand why. By having Vulcan

[Show spoiler]

and altering some significant backstory elements of some characters, the film fundamentally wipes out the existence of everything Star Trek that has come before. In one regard it is a complete disrespect to Gene Roddenberry (the creator) and everyone who worked so hard on all Star Trek projects. In another regard it is an extreme homage to what Star Trek did best. So, the combination is quite volatile since those who recognize both of these aspects desperately want to defend the old material while being extra emotional about the fact that it was handled in such a wonderful Star Trek manner.

Just my $0.02 though. "You don't have to take my word for it."

L-Rouge · 06-24-2014, 05:34 AM

Continuity and idealism for the most part just a bit too loose with trek tradition, some see the new direction as an afront to the ideals of treks creator gene roddenberry. Opting for flash and bang over deep thought provoking concepts. But its been a traditionalist battle since 1987. I still see those who disregard ST TNG as easy as JJ alternate Trek.

but allow me to introduce myself as someone who appreciates the old and the new. See my avatar.

Spidey Blu · 06-24-2014, 05:35 AM

I don't think Into Darkness wis the worst Trek film, but it felt like a piss poor excuse to use Khan. And the whole trying to keep his identity a secret thing kinda hurt the movie.

Samus Aran · 06-24-2014, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

But, I can understand why. By having Vulcan

[Show spoiler]

and altering some significant backstory elements of some characters, the film fundamentally wipes out the existence of everything Star Trek that has come before. In one regard it is a complete disrespect to Gene Roddenberry (the creator) and everyone who worked so hard on all Star Trek projects. In another regard it is an extreme homage to what Star Trek did best. So, the combination is quite volatile since those who recognize both of these aspects desperately want to defend the old material while being extra emotional about the fact that it was handled in such a wonderful Star Trek manner.

I don't know about you, but I still see Star Trek episodes on TV and my Blu-ray movie box set hasn't vanished from existence.

They bent over backward to say the new movies were an alternate reality rather than erasing the known timeline. It's the first sequel, prequel and reboot all rolled into one! (And there are rumors the new Terminator movies are following the same path.)

A lot of fanboys clamor for something fresh and different... but only if it's exactly the same as everything that came before.

AaronJ · 06-24-2014, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samus Aran

I don't know about you, but I still see Star Trek episodes on TV and my Blu-ray movie box set hasn't vanished from existence.

They bent over backward to say the new movies were an alternate reality rather than erasing the known timeline. It's the first sequel, prequel and reboot all rolled into one! (And there are rumors the new Terminator movies are following the same path.)

A lot of fanboys clamor for something fresh and different... but only if it's exactly the same as everything that came before.

[Show spoiler]

OMG, isn't that truth? Don't even get me started on how prevalent that exact sentiment is in superhero comics fandom. Yeesh.

FrancisP · 06-24-2014, 05:48 AM

I have had nothing to do with Star Trek since Star Trek VI because the other reincarnations have not been interesting. Also I don't like the way Rick Berman took over after Roddenberry died and shoved the original cast out because he was jealous. Then Abrams decided to rewrite the whole Star Trek history for his ego. Also he wanted CBS, who held the rights to the original series, to stop selling items associated with the original Star Trek. What a moron.

aiman04 · 06-24-2014, 05:52 AM

I'm a casual fan and I like it all, old and new.

Samus Aran · 06-24-2014, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronJ

OMG, isn't that truth? Don't even get me started on how prevalent that exact sentiment is in superhero comics fandom. Yeesh.

The biggest issue with Trekdom is that the most vocal (militant) Trekkies or Trekkers "define" true Star Trek as whatever it means to them -- their specific and singular point of view, their fan fiction -- and everything else is wrong and everyone else is wrong. They don't accept that Star Trek can be different things to different people.

jittersuperhero · 06-24-2014, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samus Aran

I don't know about you, but I still see Star Trek episodes on TV and my Blu-ray movie box set hasn't vanished from existence.

They bent over backward to say the new movies were an alternate reality rather than erasing the known timeline. It's the first sequel, prequel and reboot all rolled into one! (And there are rumors the new Terminator movies are following the same path.)

A lot of fanboys clamor for something fresh and different... but only if it's exactly the same as everything that came before.

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable' - YouTube

Speaking as someone who did enjoy the new movies but am married to a lifelong Trek fan who hates them with utter detestation, while the movies, TV series and books remain available, they have become the alternate reality or "Legacy". The JJ Abrams reality has become the primary. They are doing the same thing with the new Star Wars. Any expanded universe stuff became non canon even if formerly considered canon or pseudo canon. When you add the fact that Star Trek has now shed some of it's more cerebral nature for flash and bang, it's a recipe for strong feelings.

nagysaudio · 06-24-2014, 06:32 AM

I'm a Star Trek fan. Here's why: The reboot and its sequel are both pieces of idiotic garbage!!! The original series was about realistic science. Exploration. It inspired hundreds of ideas which changed the world.

The new movies? Ignorant tripe. No different than the stock comic book movie. So why call it Star Trek?

Elvis · 06-24-2014, 06:40 AM

Because they tried to make Star Trek something it is not. The alternate time line thing was just plain silly. The only thing they got right was the casting it's just too bad the scripts were garbage. Oh what could have been.....

master gandhi · 06-24-2014, 06:47 AM

Abrams brought us Star Wars disguised as Star Trek. It's cool on its own as fun escapist entertainment, but it doesn't truly represent Trek at its core. Just on the surface. It makes perfect sense to me that he would then be approached to do Star Wars. Having said that, I dig Abrams and all his films and can't wait for his next one. I just wish he hadn't tried to connect his Star Trek reboot films to classic Trek by using Leonard Nimoy's presence and Khan (who looks and acts nothing like Khan in "Space Seed" or Wrath of Khan; I thought this was an alternate timeline, not a bizarro universe). Those parts don't completely work.

fiveseven4combat · 06-24-2014, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samus Aran

I don't know about you, but I still see Star Trek episodes on TV and my Blu-ray movie box set hasn't vanished from existence.

They bent over backward to say the new movies were an alternate reality rather than erasing the known timeline. It's the first sequel, prequel and reboot all rolled into one! (And there are rumors the new Terminator movies are following the same path.)

A lot of fanboys clamor for something fresh and different... but only if it's exactly the same as everything that came before.

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable' - YouTube

Very true. The new movies actually made me a fan of the franchise. I was never too big on Star Trek, I watch TNG a little when I was younger, but never really fell in live with it. But the new movies are great IMO.

Randall Flagg · 06-24-2014, 07:24 AM

I am a Star Trek fan and i'm not bitter about the reboot.

sandman slim · 06-24-2014, 07:38 AM

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.

Gizz · 06-24-2014, 07:44 AM

Quote:

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"

Big fan of Star Trek (Well not Voyager) and I really liked both Star Trek and Star Trek into Darkness.

iank · 06-24-2014, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

I'm a Star Trek fan. Here's why: The reboot and its sequel are both pieces of idiotic garbage!!! The original series was about realistic science. Exploration. It inspired hundreds of ideas which changed the world.

The new movies? Ignorant tripe. No different than the stock comic book movie. So why call it Star Trek?

Yup. And I'm not even much of a fan in the first place but I still call BS on the reboot. Into Darkness was particularly egregious - the last 30 minutes especially were embarrassingly, laughably bad.

Samus Aran · 06-24-2014, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gizz

Big fan of Star Trek (Well not Voyager) and I really liked both Star Trek and Star Trek into Darkness.

Voyager was the only Trek series where after a few seasons I couldn't take it anymore and just had to stop watching.

06-24-2014, 05:04 AM	#1
blu-mike Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Jul 2008 Blu-ray collection:440 Blu-ray reviews:2	Why are Star Trek fans so bitter about the reboot? 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"

06-24-2014, 05:30 AM	#3
Petra_Kalbrain Blu-ray Archduke Top contributor Member since:Jul 2007 Location:Vancouver, BC 4K collection:5 Blu-ray collection:561 Blu-ray reviews:3 Trading Score:20	Well, I'm a Star Trek fan from the Next Generation era and I love the reboot. I love the original series too, but I only followed that series several years after TNG ended. But, I can understand why. By having Vulcan [Show spoiler]destroyed and altering some significant backstory elements of some characters, the film fundamentally wipes out the existence of everything Star Trek that has come before. In one regard it is a complete disrespect to Gene Roddenberry (the creator) and everyone who worked so hard on all Star Trek projects. In another regard it is an extreme homage to what Star Trek did best. So, the combination is quite volatile since those who recognize both of these aspects desperately want to defend the old material while being extra emotional about the fact that it was handled in such a wonderful Star Trek manner. Just my $0.02 though. "You don't have to take my word for it." Last edited by Petra_Kalbrain; 06-24-2014 at 05:33 AM.

06-24-2014, 05:35 AM	#5
Spidey Blu Expert Member Top contributor Member since:Mar 2009 4K collection:18 Blu-ray collection:250 DVD collection:247 Trading Score:63	I don't think Into Darkness wis the worst Trek film, but it felt like a piss poor excuse to use Khan. And the whole trying to keep his identity a secret thing kinda hurt the movie. Last edited by Spidey Blu; 06-24-2014 at 05:38 AM.

06-24-2014, 05:34 AM	#4
L-Rouge Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Aug 2010 Location:south 4K collection:5 Blu-ray collection:254	Continuity and idealism for the most part just a bit too loose with trek tradition, some see the new direction as an afront to the ideals of treks creator gene roddenberry. Opting for flash and bang over deep thought provoking concepts. But its been a traditionalist battle since 1987. I still see those who disregard ST TNG as easy as JJ alternate Trek. but allow me to introduce myself as someone who appreciates the old and the new. See my avatar.

06-24-2014, 05:48 AM	#8
FrancisP Expert Member Member since:Jul 2012	I have had nothing to do with Star Trek since Star Trek VI because the other reincarnations have not been interesting. Also I don't like the way Rick Berman took over after Roddenberry died and shoved the original cast out because he was jealous. Then Abrams decided to rewrite the whole Star Trek history for his ego. Also he wanted CBS, who held the rights to the original series, to stop selling items associated with the original Star Trek. What a moron.

06-24-2014, 05:52 AM	#9
aiman04 Blu-ray Champion Member since:Nov 2007 Location:Malaysia Home Theater Gallery:9	I'm a casual fan and I like it all, old and new.

06-24-2014, 06:32 AM	#12
nagysaudio Banned Top contributor Member since:Aug 2011 Blu-ray collection:274 Blu-ray reviews:1 Trading Score:8	I'm a Star Trek fan. Here's why: The reboot and its sequel are both pieces of idiotic garbage!!! The original series was about realistic science. Exploration. It inspired hundreds of ideas which changed the world. The new movies? Ignorant tripe. No different than the stock comic book movie. So why call it Star Trek?

06-24-2014, 06:40 AM	#13
Elvis Banned Member since:May 2009 Location:The Jungle Room Home Theater Gallery:1 Blu-ray collection:327 DVD collection:45 Blu-ray reviews:10 Trading Score:18	Because they tried to make Star Trek something it is not. The alternate time line thing was just plain silly. The only thing they got right was the casting it's just too bad the scripts were garbage. Oh what could have been.....

06-24-2014, 06:47 AM	#14
master gandhi Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Jan 2013 Location:United States Trading Score:1	Abrams brought us Star Wars disguised as Star Trek. It's cool on its own as fun escapist entertainment, but it doesn't truly represent Trek at its core. Just on the surface. It makes perfect sense to me that he would then be approached to do Star Wars. Having said that, I dig Abrams and all his films and can't wait for his next one. I just wish he hadn't tried to connect his Star Trek reboot films to classic Trek by using Leonard Nimoy's presence and Khan (who looks and acts nothing like Khan in "Space Seed" or Wrath of Khan; I thought this was an alternate timeline, not a bizarro universe). Those parts don't completely work.

06-24-2014, 07:24 AM	#16
Randall Flagg Banned Member since:Apr 2014 Blu-ray collection:475	I am a Star Trek fan and i'm not bitter about the reboot.

06-24-2014, 07:38 AM	#17
sandman slim Blu-ray Champion Top contributor Member since:Aug 2013 Location:TN 4K collection:313 Blu-ray collection:6435 DVD collection:423 Digital collection:4 Prime collection:1 Blu-ray reviews:3 Trading Score:8	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.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals