Another 10 - 20 years based off what?  Explosions and effects and ass shots of Uhuru and a universe where 3 year college cadets get instantly promoted to captain of the fleets flagship? 

Originally posted by CazNeerg 

A franchise doesn't need to inspire fanaticism to survive, it just needs to make a healthy profit.  The new direction is far more likely to keep the franchise alive in the 21st century than something designed only to appease hardline Roddenberry worshippers. 

So you are saying that to build a uniquely broad franchise spanning 5 series, movies, comics, conventions, and myriad other incarnations you need to toss out what worked the first time to build that unique franchise and make the new reboot for the franchise a carbon copy of most everything else coming out of Hollywood?  In other words, the depth or the cannon and lore that attracted all the fans that carried Star Trek over 4 decades is not the way to build what Star Trek had built?  I think that is the most insanely stupid thing ever said.

Star Trek is unique among movies and series as being extremely long lasting and building a strong fanbase.  How can one argue that tossing out all that built that unique franchise is the way to build it again?  Where is the new Mission Impossible (another JJ reboot) TV series and movies and conventions and comics and Sat cartoons?  Where is all those things in James Bond (another reboot)?  Hrm, nothing?  Gee, maybe the way to build something unique like Star trek was, and not just a franchise that pops out a summer flash in the pan here and there, is to do what trek did the first time and hold true to the universe built over 40 years.

I agree that from TNG movies on Star Trek had really fallen flat, I recall not even knowing Nemisis came out until it was on cable not long after (admitingly I am not an Ent Tonight type though).  Yes, Star Trek needed freshening up and need to appeal to non Trekies to get some new legs.  Although I would argue that the problem with Star Trek was that it increasingly got less Strek Treky over time and more than anything that the TNG cast just sucked for the big screen (in part because ensemble casts are not right for big screen in part because they are just not big screen starts).  But come on, what is the point of appealing to people outside your genre if you have to become something other than what you are to do it?  Not to mention erase all that was built before over 40 years.  The issue is not the actors they picked, the ADD style of the movie, or the attempt or need to try to be more mass market - the issue is if in doing this reboot whether Star Trek lost all of what made it Star Trek in the first place and ultimately is still as done and gone is if they made another bloody TNG  movie with Riker using a joystick to steer the stupid ship.

Originally posted by AgtSmith

Another 10 - 20 years based off what?  Explosions and effects and ass shots of Uhuru and a universe where 3 year college cadets get instantly promoted to captain of the fleets flagship? 

 

Originally posted by CazNeerg 

A franchise doesn't need to inspire fanaticism to survive, it just needs to make a healthy profit.  The new direction is far more likely to keep the franchise alive in the 21st century than something designed only to appease hardline Roddenberry worshippers. 

 

So you are saying that to build a uniquely broad franchise spanning 5 series, movies, comics, conventions, and myriad other incarnations you need to toss out what worked the first time to build that unique franchise and make the new reboot for the franchise a carbon copy of most everything else coming out of Hollywood?  In other words, the depth or the cannon and lore that attracted all the fans that carried Star Trek over 4 decades is not the way to build what Star Trek had built?  I think that is the most insanely stupid thing ever said.

Star Trek is unique among movies and series as being extremely long lasting and building a strong fanbase.  How can one argue that tossing out all that built that unique franchise is the way to build it again?  Where is the new Mission Impossible (another JJ reboot) TV series and movies and conventions and comics and Sat cartoons?  Where is all those things in James Bond (another reboot)?  Hrm, nothing?  Gee, maybe the way to build something unique like Star trek was, and not just a franchise that pops out a summer flash in the pan here and there, is to do what trek did the first time and hold true to the universe built over 40 years.

I agree that from TNG movies on Star Trek had really fallen flat, I recall not even knowing Nemisis came out until it was on cable not long after (admitingly I am not an Ent Tonight type though).  Yes, Star Trek needed freshening up and need to appeal to non Trekies to get some new legs.  Although I would argue that the problem with Star Trek was that it increasingly got less Strek Treky over time and more than anything that the TNG cast just sucked for the big screen (in part because ensemble casts are not right for big screen in part because they are just not big screen starts).  But come on, what is the point of appealing to people outside your genre if you have to become something other than what you are to do it?  Not to mention erase all that was built before over 40 years.  The issue is not the actors they picked, the ADD style of the movie, or the attempt or need to try to be more mass market - the issue is if in doing this reboot whether Star Trek lost all of what made it Star Trek in the first place and ultimately is still as done and gone is if they made another bloody TNG  movie with Riker using a joystick to steer the stupid ship.

First of all, and I've been wanting to say this for a while now, it is canon.  Not cannon, those are the weapons that used to stick out the sides of wet-navy ships in the age of sail.
 

Second, screw the conventions.  The conventions didn't help keep the franchise alive, they just gave those with an unhealthy degree of obsession a way to pretend they had a social life.

Third, you don't seem to understand the evolution of the franchise very well.  It took a *long* time for the original series to become popular, the first movie only got made because of Star Wars, not because of trekkies, and without the second movie, the entire franchise wouldn't have been forty years, it would have been 15 years, consisting of one cancelled three season tv series and one crappy movie.  It didn't last another 25 years because the stuff that came after Khan was so great, it lasted another 25 years because *Khan* was great, and what followed was just barely good enough to take a long time to erode away all that good will.

Is the new movie as good as Khan? As far as I am concerned, no, not that good.  But it is the best the franchise has managed to do since Khan, and even if it doesn't spawn 20 more years, it could spawn 15, or 10, or 5, in which time the new crew could grow into their roles enough that we get another Khan, or an even better movie, which will rejuvenate the franchise even further.

Another thing you don't seem to realize, the definitive elements of Trek for most people aren't the forty years of accumulated and often contradictory trivia, it was the quality of the characters, the relationships between them, and the way those characters dealt with extraordinary situations.  The new movie didn't lose "what makes Trek, Trek," that has been getting lost for years.  You can argue about when it started to get lost, whether it was in TNG, DS9, Voyager, or the TNG movies, but by the time they even started considering this movie, what made Trek relevant and exciting to most people had already died.  It was gone.  This movie was an attempt to bring it back, and for the vast majority of those seeing it, that attempt has been a success.

What is the point of designing a movie that only appeals to people who memorized 40 years of trivia?  You really wanted them to put the final nail in the Star Trek coffin that badly?

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Second, screw the conventions.  The conventions didn't help keep the franchise alive, they just gave those with an unhealthy degree of obsession a way to pretend they had a social life.

I think those conventions are weird myself, and I wouldn't go near one - but to deny that the series and early movies had substance enough to generate that kind of loyalty and that in large part that enthusiasm was not part of the franchise spanning over 40 years and so many incarnations is just idiotic.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Third, you don't seem to understand the evolution of the franchise very well.  It took a *long* time for the original series to become popular, the first movie only got made because of Star Wars, not because of trekkies, and without the second movie, the entire franchise wouldn't have been forty years, it would have been 15 years, consisting of one cancelled three season tv series and one crappy movie.  It didn't last another 25 years because the stuff that came after Khan was so great, it lasted another 25 years because *Khan* was great, and what followed was just barely good enough to take a long time to erode away all that good will.

I understand things fully, I was one of the original Trek fans brought in by the syndication of TOS and the movies in the late 70s and early 80s and the animated series in the mid 70s that I watched as a kid.  I watched TNG not sure of the new Captain but liking where it ultimately went and same with the other various incarnations.  And FYI - the first Star trek movie came out barely 1 1/2 year after Star Wars, it would have been underway well before Star Wars was shown to be a big hit so try again.  That isn't to say Star Wars success didn't help Star Trek out but it didn't get it made.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

 

Is the new movie as good as Khan? As far as I am concerned, no, not that good.  But it is the best the franchise has managed to do since Khan, and even if it doesn't spawn 20 more years, it could spawn 15, or 10, or 5, in which time the new crew could grow into their roles enough that we get another Khan, or an even better movie, which will rejuvenate the franchise even further.

I am not even really talking about the quality of the movie, it isn't so much about that.  I said the style and acting was good enough as was the effects - what I said was not good, terrible even, was in trying to reboot the franchise of several premises that fly in the face of what the franchise was built on (rookie captain and crew, poor character stories some incidents of characters engaged in things they wouldn't, and various liberties all to common with Hollywood movies in terms of the basic plot).  But all that aside, you cannot rejuvenate that which you first obliterate.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

 

Another thing you don't seem to realize, the definitive elements of Trek for most people aren't the forty years of accumulated and often contradictory trivia, it was the quality of the characters, the relationships between them, and the way those characters dealt with extraordinary situations.  The new movie didn't lose "what makes Trek, Trek," that has been getting lost for years.  You can argue about when it started to get lost, whether it was in TNG, DS9, Voyager, or the TNG movies, but by the time they even started considering this movie, what made Trek relevant and exciting to most people had already died.  It was gone.  This movie was an attempt to bring it back, and for the vast majority of those seeing it, that attempt has been a success.

The trivia is not the foundation of Star Trek, I agree, but the depth of the stories, characters, and universe that gave birth to all that canon (or trivia as you call it) is the foundation of the franchise and there was no need to erase that in order to put a new and fresh face(s) on the IP.  I also agree that since TNG went to the big screen and Berman took over the franchise has declined but I would argue it has declined by forgetting its roots and trying to appeal to the broad audience and ending up appealing to neither.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

What is the point of designing a movie that only appeals to people who memorized 40 years of trivia?  You really wanted them to put the final nail in the Star Trek coffin that badly?

Look, we agree that Star trek got stale, maybe it needed some time off to get some good ideas.  But in dropping all that made Star trek what it was to so many people across many generations (something few IPs have done beyond Star trek) it didn't need to become Star Trek in name only and, simultaneously, erase all that was built and loved from before. 

You cannot broaden your appeal by ditching who and what you where because in most often those new folks you bring in to the fold are easily attracted elsehwere by the next flashy and shiny thing.  Star Trek needed to show some of that good 'ole Hollywood creative talent, in short supply of late I know, and respect the past in more than name only while appealing to old and new alike.  This new movie clearly, and seemingly intentionally, trashed the past to reach out to new folks and in the end I think it will end up losing both.

On most of these points we are going to just have to agree to disagree.  We clearly have different conceptions of what constitutes the core of Star Trek.  I think the new movie is true to the aspects which are important to me, you think it failed to uphold the ones important to you, neither of us is likely to change that opinion.

One thing though, the first movie was green-lit because of Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind.  They were able to get it done fairly quickly because they adapted the pilot script from the Star Trek Phase II series that got cancelled before going into production.  That wasn't just something I made up, lol.  Also helps explain why that movie stank so much, it was originally intended for 45 minutes of a television show, not a 2 hour + cinematic experience.

I think it is specious to suggest that one day Star Wars comes and and is a big success so they go digging up Star Trek to get it out as if it wasn't already in the worked to one degree or another.  Obviously, Hollywood is very much a monkey see and monkey do place and that plays in to everything happening there but there is more to Star trek coming back from a 3 year series in the 60s than Star Wars being a hit as what I am saying.

Anyways, you are correct that we have to agree to disagree on some of the preferential things about the movie - such is life.  However, can we not agree that this movie failed to reach out to new fans without shunning a good bit of the old fans.  Clearly this movie made choices beyond casting and style and even plot issues that seems to go out of its way to shun more traditional Star Trek fans and that just seems pointless.  There are plenty of ways this new crew could have brough a new style and dynamic to Star trek without erasing the Star Trek many of us made in to what it is with out patronage over the years.

*EDIT*

I read this and though it was funny and on point:

1. Director J.J. Abrams Tries & Fails to Avoid Stealing Stuff from Star Wars

Abrams has said he was a Star Wars, not a Star Trek, fan growing up.  It shows.  In this Star Trek movie, Kirk is basically Luke Skywalker with the charm of Han Solo.  He’s a troubled young farm boy who leaves home at the urging of a wise older man who claims he knew the farm boy’s father.  Sound familiar?

How about the early cantina scene featuring a wacky-looking alien and a bar fight?  Or the scene near the end when one character announces the humorously low odds of a plan’s success?  Or the scene where the bad guys blow a planet up? C’mon now.


2. Product Placement is Slightly More Obnoxious than Usual

I don’t really have much against product placement — if it helps offset the budget, thus allowing the movie to be made in the first place, who cares?

Turns out, in a futuristic space movie, it’s kind of annoying to hear a familiar ring tone and then see Kirk playing around with some kind of phone/GPS hybrid with a big “NOKIA” symbol on it.

By the way, did you know Budweiser is still around in 2265?


3. The Villain: Not That Cool

When Star Trek was casting its roles, the rumor was that the producers were trying really hard to lure Russell Crowe into playing Nero, the bad guy.  It was a smart idea: typically, the better the villain, the better the movie, and Crowe would’ve made a great villain.  He eventually turned it down, and they offered the role to Eric Bana, another Australian, who accepted.

Bana does a fine job, but now I know why they were trying to hide the role behind a famous actor: because it’s crap.

His motivation is reasonable enough, and he has a cool toy — he drills a really long chain into the center of planets and then creates a black hole that implodes them — but he’s pathetically weak.  His plan is easily thwarted — if you break the chain he’s using, which isn’t hard to do, he’s out of luck — and he’s easily dispatched.  The Enterprise basically trips and falls into victory.  Hell, he and Kirk don’t even have a big satisfying climactic fight.  Kirk briefly fights one of his underlings and that’s it.  Lame.


4. You Can Drive a Truck through the Logic Holes and Coincidences

At one point, Kirk gets temporarily exiled from the Enterprise and stuck on an ice planet, seven or so miles away from a Federation outpost.  He wanders around for a little while, a big space monster starts chasing him, he finds a cave, runs in it, and meets…Leonard Nimoy, playing Spock from the Future.

The plot does a pretty good job explaining why Spock would be in roughly the same solar system as Kirk.  But Kirk happens to land on the same planet, happens to land within a one-mile radius of where Spock is hanging out, and happens to run into him?

Let’s go a little further.  Turns out Spock has been stranded on the planet by Nero.  Nero was kind enough to drop him off, as I said before, roughly seven miles from a Federation outpost.  Another coincidence.  But the bigger question: why has Spock been hanging out in a cave instead of heading over there?  As it turns out, for absolutely no reason.


5. What’s with All the Exposition?

Laughing in the face of screenwriting teachers everywhere, writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci decide to reveal the back stories of both Nero and Future Spock not organically through action or dialogue, but through two really long monologues.

Way to grind the momentum to a halt.


6. And Finally…the Green Alien was a Bad Idea.

Seriously, she looks absolutely ridiculous.

I definitely agree with him on #1 as well as #3, #4, and sort of on #5.

Originally posted by AgtSmith

I think it is specious to suggest that one day Star Wars comes and and is a big success so they go digging up Star Trek to get it out as if it wasn't already in the worked to one degree or another.  Obviously, Hollywood is very much a monkey see and monkey do place and that plays in to everything happening there but there is more to Star trek coming back from a 3 year series in the 60s than Star Wars being a hit as what I am saying.

 Anyways, you are correct that we have to agree to disagree on some of the preferential things about the movie - such is life.  However, can we not agree that this movie failed to reach out to new fans without shunning a good bit of the old fans.  Clearly this movie made choices beyond casting and style and even plot issues that seems to go out of its way to shun more traditional Star Trek fans and that just seems pointless.  There are plenty of ways this new crew could have brough a new style and dynamic to Star trek without erasing the Star Trek many of us made in to what it is with out patronage over the years.

 *EDIT*

I read this and though it was funny and on point:

 

1. Director J.J. Abrams Tries & Fails to Avoid Stealing Stuff from Star Wars

Abrams has said he was a Star Wars, not a Star Trek, fan growing up.  It shows.  In this Star Trek movie, Kirk is basically Luke Skywalker with the charm of Han Solo.  He’s a troubled young farm boy who leaves home at the urging of a wise older man who claims he knew the farm boy’s father.  Sound familiar?

How about the early cantina scene featuring a wacky-looking alien and a bar fight?  Or the scene near the end when one character announces the humorously low odds of a plan’s success?  Or the scene where the bad guys blow a planet up? C’mon now.


2. Product Placement is Slightly More Obnoxious than Usual

I don’t really have much against product placement — if it helps offset the budget, thus allowing the movie to be made in the first place, who cares?

Turns out, in a futuristic space movie, it’s kind of annoying to hear a familiar ring tone and then see Kirk playing around with some kind of phone/GPS hybrid with a big “NOKIA” symbol on it.

By the way, did you know Budweiser is still around in 2265?


3. The Villain: Not That Cool

When Star Trek was casting its roles, the rumor was that the producers were trying really hard to lure Russell Crowe into playing Nero, the bad guy.  It was a smart idea: typically, the better the villain, the better the movie, and Crowe would’ve made a great villain.  He eventually turned it down, and they offered the role to Eric Bana, another Australian, who accepted.

Bana does a fine job, but now I know why they were trying to hide the role behind a famous actor: because it’s crap.

His motivation is reasonable enough, and he has a cool toy — he drills a really long chain into the center of planets and then creates a black hole that implodes them — but he’s pathetically weak.  His plan is easily thwarted — if you break the chain he’s using, which isn’t hard to do, he’s out of luck — and he’s easily dispatched.  The Enterprise basically trips and falls into victory.  Hell, he and Kirk don’t even have a big satisfying climactic fight.  Kirk briefly fights one of his underlings and that’s it.  Lame.


4. You Can Drive a Truck through the Logic Holes and Coincidences

At one point, Kirk gets temporarily exiled from the Enterprise and stuck on an ice planet, seven or so miles away from a Federation outpost.  He wanders around for a little while, a big space monster starts chasing him, he finds a cave, runs in it, and meets…Leonard Nimoy, playing Spock from the Future.

The plot does a pretty good job explaining why Spock would be in roughly the same solar system as Kirk.  But Kirk happens to land on the same planet, happens to land within a one-mile radius of where Spock is hanging out, and happens to run into him?

Let’s go a little further.  Turns out Spock has been stranded on the planet by Nero.  Nero was kind enough to drop him off, as I said before, roughly seven miles from a Federation outpost.  Another coincidence.  But the bigger question: why has Spock been hanging out in a cave instead of heading over there?  As it turns out, for absolutely no reason.


5. What’s with All the Exposition?

Laughing in the face of screenwriting teachers everywhere, writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci decide to reveal the back stories of both Nero and Future Spock not organically through action or dialogue, but through two really long monologues.

Way to grind the momentum to a halt.


6. And Finally…the Green Alien was a Bad Idea.

Seriously, she looks absolutely ridiculous.

 

I definitely agree with him on #1 as well as #3, #4, and sort of on #5.

We can certainly agree that this new take alienates some old Trek fans.  However, the impression I have gotten from both this forum, personal conversations, and general impressions I have seen on the internet, is that far more old Trek fans loved it than hated it, while a large number of people who don't consider themselves Trek fans loved it as well.  Like I said before, it wasn't Wrath of Khan, but as a *practical* matter the franchise is in a better position than it has occupied in many years, questions of taste aside.

As to the points from the post/article or whatever it was that you quoted, I am going to take them in reverse order.  6 is just incredibly stupid, and shows that the guy who wrote it must not be anything resembling a real Star Trek fan, the Orion slave girls have a very venerable history.  5 is also stupid, it isn't a rollercoaster, it is a movie, it is ok if people take a breath and concentrate on the story once in a while.  I would have prefered if they had added about an hour to the movie for *more* character development and exposition.  They had exactly the right amount of action to tell the story they were trying to tell, but as much as I loved the movie, I still would have liked more quiet stretches developing the relationships between characters.

On number 4, if you are going to criticize one Star Trek movie on wanting us to suspend our disbelief a little too much, you are going to have to criticize almost all of them.  The unbelievably convenient coincidence is a venerable Star Trek tradition.  Number 3 was a fairly weak criticism, given that we are talking about a Star Trek movie.  The only one with a great villain was Khan, and the only others that had halfway decent villains were Undiscovered Country (the bald Klingon by Christopher Plummer) and First Contact.  That is 3 out of 10 with villains that were good, or at least decent.  Not a good ratio for making that a criteria on which to judge a Trek movie.

Number 2 is actually one I have to agree with, I was just able to forgive it because the obnoxiously non-sensical product placement took up a grand total of about 15 seconds of the movie.  And number 1 is just silly.  A movie is Star Wars-y because it had a bar fight and a planet was destroyed? Weeeeak argument.  Kirk grew up in Iowa in both incarnations, so the farm boy thing doesn't even count.

 This old Trek fan could have liked it if the story hadn't been so flat. I'm really hoping that they'll actually put something fairly good together for the second one. As long as they don't look towards Empire Strikes Back for their inspiration.

The problem with these over the top action movies is that the sequel has to be even more over the top in order to draw an audience. Despite the obvious influence of Star Wars on this film, it failed completely to create the epic storyline that was Wars' main reason for success. Therefore, all they really have left is the action. And with that increased over-the-top requirement to continue to draw viewers, you get a corresponding increase in ridiculousness. And when the ridiculousness factor tops out, you'll lose your audience.

Despite claims to the contrary, it was the fans that kept Trek alive through the dark times of the early 70s. Phase II would not have gotten the go-ahead to become the flagship program of the new Paramount network if it had not been for all that fan support. Preproduction finished, sets were built, the first half-dozen or so scripts were written, and a lot of money was spent. Clearly, Paramount believed they had an audience, and it was the conventions that told them so. This was all well before Star Wars made its appearance. Star Wars (and Close Encounters) were merely the impetus to change it over to a movie. And this wasn't even the first time they had thought about changing Phase II into a movie.

The first convention I attended, in 1974, at the stadium the Denver Nuggets played in, was half full when Gene Roddenberry stepped up to the microphone and told us how even at that point, Paramount had decided that Star Trek would be coming back and he was already involved with preliminary work on it. He went over a number of the concepts, to include a saucer section that would detach and land on planets. That's a mere six years after the end of TOS.

Fans kept this franchise alive for 40 years. And when this new version has reached Ridiculous level and the Pakleds it was designed to entice have wandered off to the next shiny movie with explosions, it will be the fans that will continue to keep it alive.

 Oh, and I algree with all those points except number 6. The movie showed the Orion girl was more than just some trampy sex slave (a trampy cadet?), and she really was quite cute. She was just unfortunate enough to be paired up with Uhura. I imagine she died on one of the other ships though. Unfortunate, this. Here's hoping for Janice Rand in the next one!

Eh, Phase II was cancelled *before* they decided they wanted a movie, not because they decided it.  The desire for a sci-fi movie resurrected the concept.  I'll grant you that the hardcore fans were enough to keep Paramount thinking about Star Trek whenever the topic of sci-fi came up, but they just didn't have the numbers to support shows/movies on their own.  Small but dedicated is certainly useful, and just as clearly not sufficient.

Didn't "Ponn Farr" the male mating ritual of Vulcans...have a biological requirement that forced them to return to the home planet?

Originally posted by BarCrow

Didn't "Ponn Farr" the male mating ritual of Vulcans...have a biological requirement that forced them to return to the home planet?

No it just required them to return to their mates... Which for Spock was his wife on Vulcan in TOS. Oops... something else they seemed to overlook in the movie. LOL

Bren

Originally posted by Brenelael

Originally posted by BarCrow

Didn't "Ponn Farr" the male mating ritual of Vulcans...have a biological requirement that forced them to return to the home planet?

No it just required them to return to their mates... Which for Spock was his wife on Vulcan in TOS. Oops... something else they seemed to overlook in the movie. LOL

 

Bren

I I remember correctly, Spock got married in TOS, where his wife to be picked Kirk and made them fight to the death. However, the movie occurs long before these events. CBS used to play TOS every weekday after school when i was a kid and it was way better then Oprah.

Originally posted by Brenelael

Originally posted by BarCrow

Didn't "Ponn Farr" the male mating ritual of Vulcans...have a biological requirement that forced them to return to the home planet?

No it just required them to return to their mates... Which for Spock was his wife on Vulcan in TOS. Oops... something else they seemed to overlook in the movie. LOL

 

Bren

 Damn...well...with  Vulcan (and most vulcans) destroyed..I Imagine there's going to be a lot of off-planet green-bloods with blue balls running amok.

Originally posted by DragonShark

 This old Trek fan could have liked it if the story hadn't been so flat. I'm really hoping that they'll actually put something fairly good together for the second one. As long as they don't look towards Empire Strikes Back for their inspiration.

The problem with these over the top action movies is that the sequel has to be even more over the top in order to draw an audience. Despite the obvious influence of Star Wars on this film, it failed completely to create the epic storyline that was Wars' main reason for success. Therefore, all they really have left is the action. And with that increased over-the-top requirement to continue to draw viewers, you get a corresponding increase in ridiculousness. And when the ridiculousness factor tops out, you'll lose your audience.

Despite claims to the contrary, it was the fans that kept Trek alive through the dark times of the early 70s. Phase II would not have gotten the go-ahead to become the flagship program of the new Paramount network if it had not been for all that fan support. Preproduction finished, sets were built, the first half-dozen or so scripts were written, and a lot of money was spent. Clearly, Paramount believed they had an audience, and it was the conventions that told them so. This was all well before Star Wars made its appearance. Star Wars (and Close Encounters) were merely the impetus to change it over to a movie. And this wasn't even the first time they had thought about changing Phase II into a movie.

The first convention I attended, in 1974, at the stadium the Denver Nuggets played in, was half full when Gene Roddenberry stepped up to the microphone and told us how even at that point, Paramount had decided that Star Trek would be coming back and he was already involved with preliminary work on it. He went over a number of the concepts, to include a saucer section that would detach and land on planets. That's a mere six years after the end of TOS.

Fans kept this franchise alive for 40 years. And when this new version has reached Ridiculous level and the Pakleds it was designed to entice have wandered off to the next shiny movie with explosions, it will be the fans that will continue to keep it alive.

 Oh, and I algree with all those points except number 6. The movie showed the Orion girl was more than just some trampy sex slave (a trampy cadet?), and she really was quite cute. She was just unfortunate enough to be paired up with Uhura. I imagine she died on one of the other ships though. Unfortunate, this. Here's hoping for Janice Rand in the next one!

All very, very well said.  Particuarly the highlighted part, that is what I was getting at with this being a fun summer movie bad a very bad start in terms of a reboot.  When you rely on flash and shine you simply cannot go very far, there is allways something flasjier and shinier.  Without the subtext and foundation of the strong cannon there isn't the foundation to carry forward beyond the limited attention and interest flash and shine attracts.

I'm actually glad for this movie, even my most die hard Star Trek fan who refused to watch this movie ended up loving it (we made him go lol)

We shall see if this can revitalize ST because honestly it has been dead awhile now, most the movies that came out before have been mediocre at best.

While i have pretty much watched everything star trek even the fail enterprise series, i think this needed this reboot, some might not like it but you can't make everyone happy. -shrugs-

You know they could just shelve ST forever and say screw it if people are gonna bitch piss and moan about every little thing.

If the Star Trek MMO is approached the same way this new movie was, then I'd pre-order it immediately.

The movie has definitely brought new life to a dieing franchise.  Being able to appeal to Trekkies as well as 'normal folk' is an amazing feat.

It's good to see some people on this thread defend what Star Trek once was. For a while there I began to think I'd entered some wierd alternate timeline myself - one where everyone completely lost their minds and universally hailed this pile of maneuer as god's gift to moviegoers. Then again, with all the bright, blinding flashes and lens flares throughout the movie, I wouldn't be surprised if Abrams threw a few subliminal brain-liquifying messages in there to make certain of his financial success.

I have to wonder, are the majority of Trek fans really this gullible? Or are they just this desperate? At BEST this movie was just a flashy soulless seizure-inducing action flick. For at least the first half of the movie, it wasnt even capable of focusing on a single scene for more than 2 seconds. The Enterprise felt small and insignificant and it had no crew, It looked like it was being run by 6 people. When the shuttlebay opened it exposed the entire inside of the drive section... it didnt even have any decks! Just a bunch of post-industrial pipes going all over the place like a gigantic scaffold... But I digress. I know what the lovers are saying- that Star Trek was dead and that this somehow brought it back from the grave. If so, we've just experienced some really shitty necromancy. Like Exhuming your great grandfather's corpse, putting him in a rhinestone studded Liberacci suit and parading him around tied to a dolly.

Oh I can understand why a non-Trek fan would like this garbage, in the same way I understand why they enjoyed Transformers, or X-Men 3, The Last Stand :P. What I don't understand is how self-proclaimed trekkies can call this Star Trek with a straight face. WHAT exactly was "Star Trek" about it? I'll tell you what, really really really superficial crap - the kind of stuff everyone has at some point in time seen on a commercial, or when flipping through channels and caught 2 seconds of TOS closing theme (you know, with the shot of the scantily-clad green ho for example). Apparently Abrams felt the world was far to dumb for a little Star Trek canon, so he put in his movie only the things that a complete idiot might recognize - Vulcans and humans, comprising pretty much the entire federation in this movie, Spock (because he's gotz da pointy earz and he does that funny thing with his hand), a ship sorta resembling the enterprise... and... what... what else? Red Matter?

WTF IS RED MATTER?

Oh, you know, its like the spice in Dune... magical and stuff... and the Vulcans have it for some reason... Oh don't worry about where it came from or what the hell it is or anything else plot-wise for that matter... here, look at some green boobies! What? Uh oh, the audience is starting to think this might be Star Trek and a little too dorky for them, lets flash some blinding lights and jump from scene to scene so fast they wont have a chance to think!

If it seems like I feel passionately about this, its because I do, but not necessarily because this is Star Trek being butchered here, but because it seems like the wool has so completely and thoroughly been pulled over everybody's eyes. Ladies and gentlemen, this isnt even very good as a stand-alone action flick. It barely has a plot, and what plot it does have is filled with holes. Yes, I expect better than this for Star Trek. Star Trek was satire, it was mystery, it was discovery, it was an intellectual pursuit - yes, that means it's only likely to attract people with at least half a brain, and no, that's not a bad thing. Smart people need entertainment too, after all.

I'm fed up. I'm fed up is all. I needed to get this out there somewhere. I can't let the entire world go on praising this resuscitated corpse wearing a label on it written in Sharpee that says "Star Trek". Yes, Star Trek may very well have been dead, and as a trekkie I am prepared to say let it remain dead. Better that, and the memory of why it was so special to so many people, than.... than whatever this movie is.

Gene Roddenberry is rolling in his grave. (Or rather, spinning with agitation in his little tube in orbit)

Originally posted by spankybus

Originally posted by Brenelael

Originally posted by BarCrow

Didn't "Ponn Farr" the male mating ritual of Vulcans...have a biological requirement that forced them to return to the home planet?

No it just required them to return to their mates... Which for Spock was his wife on Vulcan in TOS. Oops... something else they seemed to overlook in the movie. LOL

 

Bren

 

I I remember correctly, Spock got married in TOS, where his wife to be picked Kirk and made them fight to the death. However, the movie occurs long before these events. CBS used to play TOS every weekday after school when i was a kid and it was way better then Oprah.

Nope, I believe if you go back and watch that episode again you'll find that once Kirk gets Spock to finally tell him whats wrong he states that he was married as soon as he 'came of age' so to speak. You think that TOS episode was the first time Spock went into heat in his entire life? Spock's wife ended his marriage by picking Kirk as her champion hoping he would kill Spock so she could run off with her Vulcan lover who would still be unharmed incase Spock won. Spock was married acording to lore long before the events in this movie. That TOS episode actually ended his marriage because after Spock thought he had killed Kirk he just wasn't horny anymore and told the other Vulcan dude that if he wanted her he could have her.

Bren

I would rather not have Star Trek dead since i love it so much, while there are those who hate this movie and i understand that,  this is just the way things are nowadays.

Movies are made the way they are because of the people of this world, this movie brought in more money then any other Star Trek movie, did they have to change things to bring in potential new fans, yeah, does that piss off some hardcore trekkies, yeah, but i say tough shit lol...i want Star Trek, this is the new way they are going, i'm going to follow it no matter what.

You all have your old history to cling too, you don't have to follow the new time line, but as i said i would rather see Star Trek live then die and this movie revived things in my eyes.

Well i'm not here trying to change anyones minds, i love all the history of Star Trek, for me this is just new history to explore and i can't wait to see what else they do.

I've seen the movie 3 times now and every time i have a blast, i'm actually hoping they talk this cast into doing a T.V. series.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Originally posted by jmd10222

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Originally posted by Otiro

Originally posted by CazNeerg

My main thought is that it is pretty funny that the game is being set in a timeline that no longer exists.

 

Actually if I remember correctly the game takes place 30 years after "Nemesis" which was the last Next Genration movie. So I would think that the time line is correct.

Voyager, and Deep Space Nine took place during the same time line as the Next Generation series. The game comes in after that.

I could be wrong though.

 

Possible SPOILER ALERT

>

>

>

Without giving specific plot spoilers, I think it is safe to say that as of the end of this movie, it is far more likely than not that the events depicted in Nemesis never happen.

 

It is an alternate timeline/reality. They even mention this in the Movie, and JJ has also said this in interviews. So STO does not take place in this reality, but the one established by TNG...God I hate temporal mechanics, makes my head hurt.
 

 

But it doesn't *really* establish that the old timeline still exists, except in old Spock's memories.  The character that uses the phrase "alternate reality" isn't a temporal physicist, it is a communications specialist.  The only alternate timeline/reality that has actually been established as existing in any piece of published Star Trek entertainment is the "Dark Mirror" universe.

Also, if his timeline still existed, why wouldn't Old Spock be concentrating on finding a way back?  As for what JJ said in interviews, until he puts it in one of the movies in some definitive way, he can change his mind.  At this point there is nothing concrete to contradict the theory that Old Spock is all that is left of the Star Trek universe that was.

I pressume Old Spock isnt trying to  find a way back because there are too many difficulties for him to overcome in this reality. First, the way that they came into this reality first, it seems it was purely coincidental, as you noticed that the romulans arrived 25 years before Old Spock showed from the blackhole, which means that indeed that blackhole shot the 2 ships separately.

Second thing is that there is no more Red Matter which was the thing that created the actual blackhole and even if they were able to create a blackhole, navigating it to the original time line would imply that indeed that kind of knowledge was already in possession of the people from the original time line, which as far as I know they dont have(correct me if Im wrong)

Originally posted by Scalebane

I would rather not have Star Trek dead since i love it so much, while there are those who hate this movie and i understand that,  this is just the way things are nowadays.

Movies are made the way they are because of the people of this world, this movie brought in more money then any other Star Trek movie, did they have to change things to bring in potential new fans, yeah, does that piss off some hardcore trekkies, yeah, but i say tough shit lol...i want Star Trek, this is the new way they are going, i'm going to follow it no matter what.

You all have your old history to cling too, you don't have to follow the new time line, but as i said i would rather see Star Trek live then die and this movie revived things in my eyes.

Personally, if Star trek has to become just another summer movie in order to survive then I would rather it stay dead.  Mind you, despite the obvious need for some refreshing up, I do not think a reboot was needed.  Yes, the last few ST movies sucked but a cast worthy of the big screen likely could have fixed that, TNG crew was good for TV but aside from Stewart not big screen material.  Also, with a 40+ year history why is it time to freak out if the franchise needs a break of a few years between projects.  People say reboot like St was old, dead, and buried and it wasn't - it needed a fresh idea not a reset of all the franchise had built to this point.