STAR TREK Reboot!

LEDBE
Last I heard from Abrams and Co. is that this movie will be set in an alternate universe so that technically everything from TOS, TNG, ect, still "happened". From what I've gathered they've taken the liberty, in usual Abrams fashion, to change things considered canon to whatever they want them to be.

I'm undecided to whether I'm going to see it or not.:confused:
 
I can't wait to hear the Trekkies gripe about this one. I loved watching TOS and TNG, even some DS9, but I'm not a rabid fan. At the same time, I do hate when shows are made into movies and original story elements are messed with. Maybe because I loath change, or because it is so often done for the wrong reasons. The movie will be shown at Imax, so if I go it will be because I get a discount. Otherwise I'd wait for the DVD.
 
I hadn't seen that trailer yet. I was an ST fan long before it was cool to be an ST fan. Like 300winmag it irks me when someone disregards known "facts" in ST while making a movie. I started to list bullet points but that's probably for a different thread. Like the "Enterprise" show, it's probably good but it shouldn't have the ST label on it.
 
Speaking as a lifetime Trek fan, I was highly skeptical of the whole project, even before the whole time travel/alternate timeline/parallel universe plot was revealed. Mostly because of Abrams and his usual writing staff. They have done one or two projects that I found somewhat entertaining, but not outstandingly so, while the rest of their outcome is just bad.

In particular, Abrams has shown repeatedly that he knows nothing about science, and only writes bad science fiction because of it, despite being fascinating by the genre. "Armageddon" (written by) and "Fringe" as the prime examples.

"Lost" also, for that matter. I remember rolling my eyes when they started about "electromagnetics" that caused a lot of the weird events. Though I stopped watching because of the constant tease that never promised a satisfactory climactic resolution.

Their bad writers, in my opinion. They constantly write themselves into a corner and cannot get out properly. In a TV series, they can get away with it by throwing curve balls and cliff hangers (though it gets old once you realize their shtick). But in a movie, their disability shows up badly.

They have already destroyed another 60s icon with "Mission Impossible III" with it, IMO. I don't want it to happen to "Star Trek".
 
I'm also a die hard Trekkie and almost all other reasonably good sci-fi (of which there is a long list). Still have my signed Marina Sirtis poster. The mistake is needing to compare them and keep everything locked into what already happened.

If you just watch a new series or movie for its own sake, realizing that creators, directors, actors, technology, audiences, etc. ongoingly change, it becomes pointless to expect everything to stay the same, or the way you think it should be.

For example, I could never stand watching DS9 or Enterprise after TOS, TNG, Voyager...and for some reason bought the 1st season of DVD's. I ended up totally loving both series for their own sake. Same with the collection of SG movies.

Same with Stargate. I thought the movie was a masterpiece, and the TV series was a paled comparison until I got hooked. Then I thought it sucked when Dean Anderson left, until I got hooked by new characters. Again when their nemesis changed from the Goa'uld to the Ori. Then I thought it mega sucked when Atlantis came on board until I got hooked on all those as well. Same with SG movies that have come out.
 
I would also like the new movie to stay true to all that has gone before, but that's kind of the point here. If they do, the series has stagnated and needs to be refreshed. Refreshed doesn't mean just making the next story and get some new uniforms.

James Bond just got this treatment and I thought it was good. Batman did too. Superman is coming, I've heard somewhere.

Series history is great, but it shouldn't be used to the extent where is endangers the whole project.

My .02
 
What is this about an alternate universe? (see post 2) I thought it was a simple prequel.

I am not that impressed with the James Bond makeover.
Originally the 'gimmicks' were real things. The plane with the Y front that picked up Bond and girl by grabbing the balloon was NASA technology for picking up returning space modules. The jetpack was for moving marines ashore. Never had the range but someone jumped the Grand Canyon with one a couple of months ago. The parachuting frogmen was probably representing the SBS, the Royal Navy's version of the SAS.
They ran out of real stuff to show a long time ago and the 'gimmicks' got silly and ridiculous. I'm glad they are gone.
But the new movies do not have any Bond feel to them. To me they are more like a bigger budget Transporter 4 & 5 than Bond 22 & 23. Some critics are more generous calling them Bourne, Jason Bourne 4 & 5.

The older Batman movies shows its cartoonish roots. (the old TV series was worse) The more realistic look of the more recent ones is a welcome change away from all them cliches, not to mention saving a lot of money on CGI. The 1st reboot was OK. Heath Ledger made the 2nd one. (Hope he wins Sunday) Hope the 3rd will be as good.

The last Superman reboot did not work for me. His girlfriend is married to some other guy and has a kid just makes the plot too awkward.

The big studios are trying to make 52 movies a year each, then signing 3 week deals with the theaters just to fill them and keep the independents out.
Without enough viable new ideas for that many films they are remaking everything they can lay their hands on: old movies, old TV shows, books, comics. An awful lot of them are busts.
 
From the point of view of one who was not even alive during the star trek days, I have to say that the preview looked really interesting when I saw it at the theatre. The preview was kind of funny because the movie had all the same old hairstyles, outfits, and brightly lit hallways of the old spaceship yet it looked so serious because of all the dramatic background music and the way the characters were speaking. Definitely going to watch it.
 
I'm pretty excited about this new Star Trek movie, but I have my doubts and reservations. As has been mentioned, JJ Abrams definitely has shown some weaknesses (as well as strengths) that have bearing here. Still, I'm willing to give it a shot! He just might pull off something amazing. And I'm certainly not one to believe in being a slave to tradition. REINTERPRETATION is all well and good in my mind, as long as the essential core of the show is retained.

BSG is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I think that it is MORE true to the original premise than the original was. The original almost immediately deserted it--didn't have the courage to stick with the essential premise. You go from holocaust and desolation and the end of human civilization as we know it, outcasts, desperation -- to -- the casino planet? OK. NO!

The new BSG stays faithful to the premise, and is much the better for it. Who the hell really cares if Starbuck is a woman instead of a man? She's actually a better Starbuck than the original Starbuck.

Each generation, can, will and should, reimagine and re-vision their myths.

Let's hope that Abrams does something cool with Star Trek. I'm excited, but not really really hopeful. We shall see.
 
I,for one would be quite interested to see a new Star Trek TV series following this newly "rebooted" Star Trek movie.(starring all the actors from the new movie..)
 
Just wanted to revive this tread because I just saw the second trailer for Star Trek and it looks awesome! Also looking forward to Wolverine.
 
I'm quite afraid of this movie. I'm not a fan of breaking canon, so anything pre-TOS is suspect until proven otherwise. Enterprise was a prime example of why I'm afraid. Decent show but it just didn't fit into the Star Trek universe that had already been established. I'll wait till I get feedback on this movie. If it doesn't mutilate canon then I'll consider paying the ungodly fee for a movie ticket.
 
Row, row, row your boat...

Hard to get too sentimental over a lot of the old Star Trek movies. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PhotonWrangler
The Starliner spacecraft has started making strange noises
Replies
18
Views
692
sween1911
sween1911
raggie33
started another wprm farm!!!
Replies
11
Views
373
bluflaam777
bluflaam777
PhotonWrangler
Stare into a red LED for three minutes a week, improve your vision?
Replies
4
Views
1K
AstroTurf
A
raggie33
anyone know about old trek road bikes?
Replies
17
Views
3K
orbital
orbital
S
The X-Files Reboot (possible spoilers)
Replies
16
Views
6K
PartyPete
PartyPete

Latest posts

Top