Spare you? Spare us your trolling... :rolleyes: The text you boldened is using an entirely different context, and don't pretend you didn't realise that. The discussion is nothing to do with changes made in the established canon during it's run, and that is a wholly different context to the idea of series re-boots and outright remakes in the name of 'remaining relevant'
:rolleyes:
No, YOU spare me yours AND your crying over the claim that "NuTrek fans...are trying to take away the historically established Trek..." Don't YOU pretend there haven't been W.T.F.? type of changes made which blatantly contradict previous canon stories AND visuals with ZERO explanation, yet you are perfectly fine with giving that a pass since it's a Trek universe/reality/whatever that you approve of.
See that high horse you're on?
It's imaginary.
You don't like NuTrek. Sorry it disturbs you. Don't watch it. Pop in your copies of Spock's Brain, Star Trek V, Sub Rosa or that Voyager Ep with the Janeway and Paris salamanders so you may think back to the good old days when Star Trek was perfect and every story made sense 100% of the time because it totally depicts accurate science and entertains every time.
No, YOU spare me yours AND your crying over the claim that "NuTrek fans...are trying to take away the historically established Trek..." Don't YOU pretend there haven't been W.T.F.? type of changes made which blatantly contradict previous canon stories AND visuals with ZERO explanation, yet you are perfectly fine with giving that a pass since it's a Trek universe/reality/whatever that you approve of.
See that high horse you're on?
It's imaginary.
You don't like NuTrek. Sorry it disturbs you. Don't watch it. Pop in your copies of Spock's Brain, Star Trek V, Sub Rosa or that Voyager Ep with the Janeway and Paris salamanders so you may think back to the good old days when Star Trek was perfect and every story made sense 100% of the time because it totally depicts accurate science and entertains every time.
:rolleyes:
Because listing every piece of bad writing Trek has made over the years qualifies as a valid argument that Trek needed a re-boot... Imaginary high horse...
:rolleyes:
PS Don't partially quote things to try and alternate context...
Girls, girls! You're both pretty, can I go home now?
Pretty much what I was thinking, yeah.
Huge fan of TOS, liked TNG, liked DS9 better, VOY's wheels came off sometime in the second season, ENT had its moments; the TOS movies started falling apart after IV, IMO, and while the TNG movies started off breathing fresh life into the franchise, the last two of them really sucked. Abrams' '09 movie was good, reviving the feel of the original, with the exception of exactly how Kirk took command of the Enterprise at the end (about which I have waxed wroth at length before). Haven't seen STID yet, but from what I've seen, it actually sounds promising. (Although for the next one, it would be nice if they could not do a retread of an already-told story...)
Nothing's "taking away" from anything, as far as I can tell, overheated fans aside.
I actually wholeheartedly agree with you that the assertion that art needs to be updated is a bit on the absurd side. I was just disagreeing with the suggestion that fans of new Trek "are trying to take away the historically established Trek."
Updating Trek doesn't equate to taking away the old Trek. If anything, it brings it back to the forefront. Those who don't like the new movie preach the glories of the old and those who do like the new movies give the originals a chance they normally wouldn't have given them. That's not blind speculation on my part. I personally know people who are enjoying old Star Trek purely because they loved these movies.
I've personally never met a single fan of the new Star Trek who wants Netflix to remove the classic shows or who thinks they shouldn't sale the originals on DVD.
I have, however, met plenty of people who desperately want them to stop making these new movies.
Again, I admit my opinion is based entirely on my own experience, which is certainly not enough to base a sweeping conclusion on... but it is enough anecdotal evidence to form an opinion... and in my experience, most fans of the new Star Trek are very open to the classics, but the people who don't like the new Trek actively want it to disappear forever.
I just don't get that level of hatred for a movie that has done no damage to the franchise in any way, shape, or form. Whether it has helped the franchise is arguable (although I think it has) but no matter what we think of the movie, it most certainly hasn't hurt the franchise.
Ahh, yes, in terms of production, Trek is definitely dead. What I was meaning, is that it has not dropped off the cultural radar, and is very much alive in the hearts and minds of its fans, without need for updating or 're-imagining for relevance'. Baywatch is another such series. It may be dead, but it is certainly not forgotten. Shows like Street Hawk, Alien Nation etc, are a different matter
Enh.... movies and games count too. :P So Star Trek is definately NOT dead.
It's not about taking anything away from anyone. On the contrary, it is the NuTrek fans who are trying to take away the historically established Trek (without which, their beloved NuTrek simply would not exist) by insisting that 'art needs to be updated to remain relevant' (a concept I find flawed and refutable at even the most rudimentary level)
You know I get EXATLY what you mean, this 'New Trek' really undermines the 'historically established Star Trek' in a major way. I mean:
- Captain James T. Kirk replaced by an old, balding Frenchman (Jean Luc Picard) who hates kids.
- Mr. Spock replaced by an emotionless android (Lt. Data).
- Leonard 'Bones' McCoy replaced by a female redhead ' Dr. Beverly Crusher' (nice to look at, at least) with w whiney know it all brat in tow ('Wesly Crusher').
- Then we have an actual Klingon as partg of the crew? (Lt. Worf) -- I mean WTF! Kirk would never stand for such a thing in historically established Star Trek - they killed his only son.
^^^
Yep, the fans of this 'NuTrek' really "are trying to take away the historically established Trek (without which, their beloved NuTrek simply would not exist) by insisting that 'art needs to be updated to remain relevant'" -- I agree with you 100% - hell, I'll bet you in 26 years (by 2013) NO ONE will remember or even like this 'NuTrek'!
...
Oh wait, you mean your comment wasn't referring to the changes TNG brought to the Star Trek universe in 1987? Ooops. :cool::eek:;)
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
You know I get EXATLY what you mean, this 'New Trek' really undermines the 'historically established Star Trek' in a major way. I mean:
- Captain James T. Kirk replaced by an old, balding Frenchman (Jean Luc Picard) who hates kids.
- Mr. Spock replaced by an emotionless android (Lt. Data).
- Leonard 'Bones' McCoy replaced by a female redhead ' Dr. Beverly Crusher' (nice to look at, at least) with w whiney know it all brat in tow ('Wesly Crusher').
- Then we have an actual Klingon as partg of the crew? (Lt. Worf) -- I mean WTF! Kirk would never stand for such a thing in historically established Star Trek - they killed his only son.
^^^
Yep, the fans of this 'NuTrek' really "are trying to take away the historically established Trek (without which, their beloved NuTrek simply would not exist) by insisting that 'art needs to be updated to remain relevant'" -- I agree with you 100% - hell, I'll bet you in 26 years (by 2013) NO ONE will remember or even like this 'NuTrek'!
...
Oh wait, you mean your comment wasn't referring to the changes TNG brought to the Star Trek universe in 1987? Ooops. )
No, you obviously don't get what I was referring to in my posts It's not about any changes which were made to the canon, that is just, as with those things you mention, mostly just a little thing called New Characters :eek: I'm talking about the blatantly money-grabbing unnecessary re-boot of a franchise that, while possibly dead in terms of production, was still very much alive in the hearts and minds of the fan base.
Sure, Gene was just in it for the poontang and the dollars, but the massive difference, is that it was his work to use as he pleased. He wasn't putting a new (but essentially the same) twist on another well-established concept. I appreciate that Hollywood, like Gene, is in it for the poontang and the dollars, that's what Hollywood is, but that doesn't make this recent Reboot Fever any less tasteless, or easy work for directors and writers who are better suited to commercials and music videos.
No, you obviously don't get what I was referring to in my posts It's not about any changes which were made to the canon, that is just, as with those things you mention, mostly just a little thing called New Characters :eek: I'm talking about the blatantly money-grabbing unnecessary re-boot of a franchise that, while possibly dead in terms of production, was still very much alive in the hearts and minds of the fan base.
Sure, Gene was just in it for the poontang and the dollars, but the massive difference, is that it was his work to use as he pleased. He wasn't putting a new (but essentially the same) twist on another well-established concept. I appreciate that Hollywood, like Gene, is in it for the poontang and the dollars, that's what Hollywood is, but that doesn't make this recent Reboot Fever any less tasteless, or easy work for directors and writers who are better suited to commercials and music videos.
Quit being so.... fanboyish about it.
The reboot had nothing to do with whether the old stuff was good. It was about the studio making money. It's what studios do. "Blatantly money grabbing" is standard operating procedure is hollywood and has been since before Gene made the first Episode. You even admitted this.
So.... what are you really complaining about? Is it just the fact you didn't like it?
Someone directs a comment to me, am I supposed to ignore it? Godforbid that I actually respond to a comment where someone is misunderstanding (intentionally or otherwise) a point I have tried to be clear about... Fanboyism doesn't even enter into it, so I find it funny that it reads as such. The franchises mentioned as reboots are irrelevant to my point about my dislike for re-boots (or more specifically the motives behind their creation: Pretty pictures for the masses) they are merely cited examples of re-boots which did not need to be made.
The reboot had nothing to do with whether the old stuff was good. It was about the studio making money. It's what studios do. "Blatantly money grabbing" is standard operating procedure is hollywood and has been since before Gene made the first Episode. You even admitted this.
So.... what are you really complaining about? Is it just the fact you didn't like it?
See the first segment of this reply... Also, to be specific, I didn't say that I didn't like Trek09 (I actually wanted to watch it this afternoon, but couldn't find it, and watched Knocked up instead. Wound up watching a much better written movie :cool: ) I'm quite happy to watch it as something to watch. My dislike, is twofold: JJ Abrams, and pretty much all the stuff he has had a hand in, and the Hollywood trend of re-booting, re-imagining, re-making and generally recycling anything they feel like doing, rather than putting out something more original. I'm sorry if that was not clear in my previous comments.
I am not specifically bashing 09 and Into Darkness, but what they represent in terms of the Hollywood trend. Equally, I find it frustrating when people respond to any apparent criticism of those films with "It's reinvigorated the franchise, brought in new fans!", for the simple reason that the films were not only not made with the idea of relaunching the franchise (just meant as pretty pictures for the masses...) but will most likely not continue beyond the usual trilogy format, which will then leave the franchise exactly where it was (which is absolutely fine) and it's no rocket science to see that the franchise will be anything but reinvigorated, but is simply being coincidentally temporarily resuscitated...
Someone directs a comment to me, am I supposed to ignore it? Godforbid that I actually respond to a comment where someone is misunderstanding (intentionally or otherwise) a point I have tried to be clear about... Fanboyism doesn't even enter into it, so I find it funny that it reads as such. The franchises mentioned as reboots are irrelevant to my point about my dislike for re-boots (or more specifically the motives behind their creation: Pretty pictures for the masses) they are merely cited examples of re-boots which did not need to be made.
Precisely!
See the first segment of this reply... Also, to be specific, I didn't say that I didn't like Trek09 (I actually wanted to watch it this afternoon, but couldn't find it, and watched Knocked up instead. Wound up watching a much better written movie :cool: ) I'm quite happy to watch it as something to watch. My dislike, is twofold: JJ Abrams, and pretty much all the stuff he has had a hand in, and the Hollywood trend of re-booting, re-imagining, re-making and generally recycling anything they feel like doing, rather than putting out something more original. I'm sorry if that was not clear in my previous comments.
I am not specifically bashing 09 and Into Darkness, but what they represent in terms of the Hollywood trend. Equally, I find it frustrating when people respond to any apparent criticism of those films with "It's reinvigorated the franchise, brought in new fans!", for the simple reason that the films were not only not made with the idea of relaunching the franchise (just meant as pretty pictures for the masses...) but will most likely not continue beyond the usual trilogy format, which will then leave the franchise exactly where it was (which is absolutely fine) and it's no rocket science to see that the franchise will be anything but reinvigorated, but is simply being coincidentally temporarily resuscitated...
Before I reply, I hope you don't feel like I'm bashing you when I disagree. I actually think you make several good points. Even if I don't agree, I completely admit you might be absolutely right. We're all just speculating, really.
That said, the one area I don't agree is that there's no teeth to the claim that it's reinvigorating the franchise.
I don't think it's reinvigorating it in the way that others do, but there's definitely a strong chance it will extend the lifespan of the franchise.
Not because these movies are super-duper great and not because the fans love these movies so much they'll demand more Trek.
But because studios now see that Star Trek can still make money.
Once this iteration runs its course (and I agree, it's probably gonna' end as a trilogy), it's going to be much easier for filmmakers or showrunners to convince a studio to take a chance on a new Star Trek movie or series.
Before Abrams made these films, there was pretty much zero chance of a new series or a continuation of Trek as it was. After the Abrams films, I think studios will be much more willing to hear and consider new Star Trek ideas because the Abrams films have proven that Star Trek can still make money.
So I do think this movie has and will reinvigorate the franchise, even if it's not in the same way the defenders usually mean.
Before I reply, I hope you don't feel like I'm bashing you when I disagree. I actually think you make several good points. Even if I don't agree, I completely admit you might be absolutely right. We're all just speculating, really.
That said, the one area I don't agree is that there's no teeth to the claim that it's reinvigorating the franchise.
I don't think it's reinvigorating it in the way that others do, but there's definitely a strong chance it will extend the lifespan of the franchise.
Not because these movies are super-duper great and not because the fans love these movies so much they'll demand more Trek.
But because studios now see that Star Trek can still make money.
Once this iteration runs its course (and I agree, it's probably gonna' end as a trilogy), it's going to be much easier for filmmakers or showrunners to convince a studio to take a chance on a new Star Trek movie or series.
Before Abrams made these films, there was pretty much zero chance of a new series or a continuation of Trek as it was. After the Abrams films, I think studios will be much more willing to hear and consider new Star Trek ideas because the Abrams films have proven that Star Trek can still make money.
So I do think this movie has and will reinvigorate the franchise, even if it's not in the same way the defenders usually mean.
Oh I quite agree, it has certainly reinvigorated the franchise in terms of renewing and maintaining its place in the cultural psyche, but to hear JJ's supporters, one would think that a new series is already green lighted into production, when there really is nothing to suggest this at all... I'll be interested to see how much input he even has on the next movie, given that he's landed himself Star Wars to play with.
And no, I didn't think you were bashing me at all, as you could see the points I was making, rather than just thinking I was JJ Bashing
Oh I quite agree, it has certainly reinvigorated the franchise in terms of renewing and maintaining its place in the cultural psyche, but to hear JJ's supporters, one would think that a new series is already green lighted into production, when there really is nothing to suggest this at all... I'll be interested to see how much input he even has on the next movie, given that he's landed himself Star Wars to play with.
And no, I didn't think you were bashing me at all, as you could see the points I was making, rather than just thinking I was JJ Bashing
You really have no idea what your talking about. There is no recent trend of reboots and remakes in Hollywood. Hollywood has been doing this since the 50s.
Besides, Trek has been rebooted three times prior to JJ's new incarnation. You got TMP, TWOK, and TNG are all reboots. While they are not reboots as we see them in modern terms, but if you go back and actually watch them, those three mediums of Trek were trying to re-invent Trek for the modern age. TMP failed, but TWOK didn't and TNG didn't.
TWOK inspired four more movies and a tv series, while TNG inspired 25 seasons, four movies, many video games, lots of novels (this is all the 90s).
If you read about the history of Trek, Roddenberry was not a part of the movie franchise after TMP and after Season 1 of TNG (Which is what Roddenberry considered his ultimate vision of Trek in which why a number of Season 1 TNG rehashed a number of ).
You really have no idea what your talking about. There is no recent trend of reboots and remakes in Hollywood. Hollywood has been doing this since the 50s.
Besides, Trek has been rebooted three times prior to JJ's new incarnation. You got TMP, TWOK, and TNG are all reboots. While they are not reboots as we see them in modern terms, but if you go back and actually watch them, those three mediums of Trek were trying to re-invent Trek for the modern age. TMP failed, but TWOK didn't and TNG didn't.
TWOK inspired four more movies and a tv series, while TNG inspired 25 seasons, four movies, many video games, lots of novels (this is all the 90s).
If you read about the history of Trek, Roddenberry was not a part of the movie franchise after TMP and after Season 1 of TNG (Which is what Roddenberry considered his ultimate vision of Trek in which why a number of Season 1 TNG rehashed a number of ).
I wasn't alive to be watching TV or movies in the 50s, but watching films growing up in the 80s/90s, I never saw as many re-makes of films as there have been in the past 10-15 years. And not even older stuff like Metropolis, Gone with the Wind, Cassablanca or La Dolce Vita, but stuff like Starsky and Hutch, Conan, The Evil Dead and Dark Shadows.
Yes, TMP, TWOK and TNG could be considered re-boots of the franchise, I wouldn't deny that. What I would respectfully point out, however, is that they were done with the direct involvement of Gene Roddenberry because he wanted it to happen.
The Trek re-boots were being done purely for the money by Hollywood, and more importantly (as making money is what Hollywood is all about) could just as easily have been any other TV/film series which they thought would get bums on seats. How about re-booting Lost in Space, SeaQuest, Space Precinct, or Space:1999? There were rumors of a film based on Gerry Anderson's UFO, but I haven't heard anything more on other than Ali Larter was attached, in well over a year... Those haven't transpired for the simple reason that the powers that be clearly don't consider them enough of a crowd-puller, but at the end of the day, any one of those listed could be re-booted and be just as watchable as JJ's take on Trek. These re-makes aren't being done for any love of filmmaking, and as someone who studied it at college, I find that disappointing.
IF Roddenberry were alive this would be a different story. But as is the way in all things, once the Originator is dead, the Successors gut the carcass for all it is worth. Perhaps the Re-Boot will spur a younger generation to reclaim Trek and make it Proud once again. But here and now, the carcass was sold to the highest bidder and this is the result, an Imperfect Trek. Honestly, I believe that complaints fall on deaf ears. The current owners have no interest other than money, and as long as it is good enough to earn money then that is all they will provide to us, the consumers. Yes, we consume what they provide, and when we no longer consume then they will sell the bones to the highest bidder.
couldn't agree more. (that is if your talking about the new star trek movies).
Yet it's the way of things today. Unfortunately , today's film industry has no respect for the origins of good tv shows, or movies or books.
Long live all the greats of the good ol days.
todays world of tv and movies suck, all because they're too afraid to do whats right.
Bout the only show I like today now is "The Walking Dead". Great show, (as long as they don't ruin it). It's got originality, and now other tv channels head leaders are now wondering why it's so good.
Not once will they realize , it's due to originality and good thinking, instead of just copying.
Some of y'all really need to go read about what Roddenberry thought of every Trek movie after The Motionless Picture. Or how many of the things we disliked about the first two seasons of TNG were also Roddenberry's babies (like, for instance, Wesley Crusher, a Mary Sue for Eugene Wesley Roddenberry).
What TOS was, and what TNG and DS9 became, were almost as much in spite of Gene as because of him.
Some of y'all really need to go read about what Roddenberry thought of every Trek movie after The Motionless Picture. Or how many of the things we disliked about the first two seasons of TNG were also Roddenberry's babies (like, for instance, Wesley Crusher, a Mary Sue for Eugene Wesley Roddenberry).
What TOS was, and what TNG and DS9 became, were almost as much in spite of Gene as because of him.
Totally. Gene actually publicly stated that he didn't even consider Wrath of Khan as canon.
Honestly, I think if WoK were released in 2009 instead of JJ's Trek, it would have received just as much hate. I mean, WoK was basically a remake of TMP, with the main changes being more action, more battles, more explosions, and a revenge-driven villain.
Pretty much sounds like the same complaints about Abrams to me (for the most part).
uh TOS everyones shooting at you or attacking each other in a bar fight, with a rare episode involving some question about morality or ethics.
Wrath of Khan was a seamless transition to me, you had vengeful Khan, and whaddya know. he's shooting at kirk! even motion picture opening scene was action packed violence..
cue Next Generation, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise.... they're still shootn at us!
man... they always shootin at us...
oh and don't forget the occasional 'peace' episode cause were the 'good' guys bit. real art I tell you!
Lyndon Brewer: 20% chance to capture enemy ship for 60 seconds on successful use of boarding party.
Honestly, the only thing I hate about Abrams' Trek is that I always get caught up in debates defending it and wind up pointing out all the bad things about classic Trek movies I love so dearly.
FYI, I'm not a zealot for the Abram films. The Kirk era movies are still my all-time favorite Trek iterations. I just think the Abram movies are a fun romp and give a good Trek fix.
Sure, it's not the same fix we got from TNG, so I can appreciate how TNG fans wouldn't like it. But as someone who grew up with TOS, I don't really have any problems with it. It took the original show 40 years to fully develop these characters. Abrams has had about 4 hours. Considering that - and the fact that he had a mandate to make a movie the masses would enjoy - I'd say he did a fine job.
what Tos Was, And What Tng And Ds9 Became, Were Almost As Much In spite Of Gene As because Of Him.
^^^^^^^
Qft
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Much to the dismay of Bad Robot, CBS' merchandising arm continued to create memorabilia and products based on the cast of the original 1960s series and market them to Trekkies. The production company did market research and found that there was brand confusion between Abrams' rebooted Enterprise crew and the one starring William Shatner and DeForest Kelley.
TheWrap has learned that Bad Robot asked CBS to stop making products featuring the original cast, but talks broke down over money. The network was making roughly $20 million a year on that merchandise and had no incentive to play nice with its former corporate brother, the individual said. In response, the company scaled back its ambitions to have "Star Trek's" storylines play out with television shows, spin-off films and online components, something Abrams had been eager to accomplish.
Abrams wanted to end all "Star Trek: The Original Series" merchandising. Movies, novels, tv-series, etc... If Abrams was able to have free reign, "Star Trek" would have been dismantlement. "Star Trek: TOS" makes $20 million dollars a year.
"Right now the 'Star Trek' movies are movies," Gomez said. "There is no apparent ongoing transmedia strategy behind them, just a handful of licensing opportunities around the release of 'Into Darkness.'
Imagine telling everyone that "Star Trek: TOS" never existed?
As long as Abrams is in charge of the movies, I personally think all "Star Trek" merchandising is in trouble.
A Fine Job
So ripping off one of the best films in Star Trek ever and making new trek nothing more than a generic sci fi film.
Lets just look at a few things that was used
1. The Original Khan was name Khan Noonien Singh and was Indian which fit with the name
The new Khan is british and fit the name Harriman better than Khan
2. Old Khan used his mind to try and outwit Kirk tactically and thought he had strength he knew that may not always win the day
New Khan relied more on brute force rather than tatical thinking
3. Kirks death scene and how he died was a direct plagarism on Spocks death in the Wrath of Khan
4. Spocks KHANNNNN Scream was just plain cheese when Kirk did it in WOK it fitted as he is human and had a reason. Spock's just was plain annoying there was no need and quite frankly irritated me.
5. Kirks resurrection
Okay so since there was no Genesis device what d the use to resurrect Kirk. Magic blood Again irritating.
That is just a few things that annoyed me about STID and why I rank it as one of the worst ST films of all time the only one worse that ID is Star Trek V.
But not a fan of JJ Trek and will love to hear the complaints of the Star Wars fan when he messes with there beloved franchise.
Be Prepared for a Alternate timeline. Destruction of a planet possibly Tattoine, The Return of Jar Jar Binks and when the falcon drops into a debris field we will see the enterprise flying past.
NO TO ARC
Vice Admiral Volmack ISS Thundermole
Brigadier General Jokag IKS Gorkan
Centurion Kares RRW Tomalak
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Abrams wanted to end all "Star Trek: The Original Series" merchandising. Movies, novels, tv-series, etc... If Abrams was able to have free reign, "Star Trek" would have been dismantlement. "Star Trek: TOS" makes $20 million dollars a year.
Imagine telling everyone that "Star Trek: TOS" never existed?
As long as Abrams is in charge of the movies, I personally think all "Star Trek" merchandising is in trouble.
JJ has ruined Trek I have seen the comics that have spawned of the film and all there doing is rehashing the storylines from the scripts there isnt a single original story in them as far as I have seen in the previews.
I at least have original TOS novels still coming out and need these to remain as there only trek fix I can get now with the original cast.
NO TO ARC
Vice Admiral Volmack ISS Thundermole
Brigadier General Jokag IKS Gorkan
Centurion Kares RRW Tomalak
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"Star Trek: TOS" makes $20 million dollars a year.
It makes $20 million for CBS. It doesn't make a dime for Paramount. And even that $20 million ends up being diffused via royalties to Gene's estate, the actors, etc.
And then you have Into Darkness, which is the 9th highest grossing movie this year at $450 million, and that doesn't even include the hundred million more it will make in licensing to HBO or Showtime, DVD and Blue Ray sales, etc this year - and it's merchandising will make millions more per year for years to come.
It's about greed on both sides. Not about trying to destroy one or the other.
STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
Bout the only show I like today now is "The Walking Dead". Great show, (as long as they don't ruin it). It's got originality, and now other tv channels head leaders are now wondering why it's so good.
Not once will they realize , it's due to originality and good thinking, instead of just copying.
You know, I had kind of skimmed past this earlier - but now its irony is knocking on my frontal lobes.
The TV show "The Walking Dead" is a loose remake of a comic-book serial - and one of the most popular characters on the show, whose name escapes me (I don't watch, so..), isn't even from the book, but is in fact a creation of the TV writers. And this is to be lauded for its pure originality, as opposed to the Abrams Trek films?
I mean, it's a bit like talking about how "brilliant" and "original" the HBO series Game of Thrones is...
Some of y'all really need to go read about what Roddenberry thought of every Trek movie after The Motionless Picture. Or how many of the things we disliked about the first two seasons of TNG were also Roddenberry's babies (like, for instance, Wesley Crusher, a Mary Sue for Eugene Wesley Roddenberry).
What TOS was, and what TNG and DS9 became, were almost as much in spite of Gene as because of him.
I admit, I don't know the full details, but I do know that Roddenberry had a beef with the way Meyer took things. My guess, would be that he didn't like what Meyer was doing, but possibly lacked the clout to reign him in as he used to try and do while filming TOS. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for a writer to have their characters and settings used in a way other than originally intended, but being unable to do anything about it. I can only imagine it might be like a guy getting his buddy to take his wife to a movie for company, but them then hooking up...
Either way though, those movies were still done with Gene's 'awareness' (if not 100% approval) rather than someone thinking they would be a good way of getting more money in by riding on someone else's artistic coat-tails
I wasn't alive to be watching TV or movies in the 50s, but watching films growing up in the 80s/90s, I never saw as many re-makes of films as there have been in the past 10-15 years. And not even older stuff like Metropolis, Gone with the Wind, Cassablanca or La Dolce Vita, but stuff like Starsky and Hutch, Conan, The Evil Dead and Dark Shadows.
The Trek re-boots were being done purely for the money by Hollywood, and more importantly (as making money is what Hollywood is all about) could just as easily have been any other TV/film series which they thought would get bums on seats. How about re-booting Lost in Space, SeaQuest, Space Precinct, or Space:1999? There were rumors of a film based on Gerry Anderson's UFO, but I haven't heard anything more on other than Ali Larter was attached, in well over a year... Those haven't transpired for the simple reason that the powers that be clearly don't consider them enough of a crowd-puller, but at the end of the day, any one of those listed could be re-booted and be just as watchable as JJ's take on Trek. These re-makes aren't being done for any love of filmmaking, and as someone who studied it at college, I find that disappointing.
Amateur.... Hollywood doesn't make ANYTHING for "the love of filmmaking". Sure sometimes a film will get bankrolled by somebody like Arnold or Bruce and get made even though the studios don't really want it, but that's a rare exception, and in those cases it's the individual's idea an not Hollywood's so they don't really count.
Comments
See that high horse you're on?
It's imaginary.
You don't like NuTrek. Sorry it disturbs you. Don't watch it. Pop in your copies of Spock's Brain, Star Trek V, Sub Rosa or that Voyager Ep with the Janeway and Paris salamanders so you may think back to the good old days when Star Trek was perfect and every story made sense 100% of the time because it totally depicts accurate science and entertains every time.
:rolleyes:
Because listing every piece of bad writing Trek has made over the years qualifies as a valid argument that Trek needed a re-boot... Imaginary high horse...
:rolleyes:
PS Don't partially quote things to try and alternate context...
:rolleyes:
Huge fan of TOS, liked TNG, liked DS9 better, VOY's wheels came off sometime in the second season, ENT had its moments; the TOS movies started falling apart after IV, IMO, and while the TNG movies started off breathing fresh life into the franchise, the last two of them really sucked. Abrams' '09 movie was good, reviving the feel of the original, with the exception of exactly how Kirk took command of the Enterprise at the end (about which I have waxed wroth at length before). Haven't seen STID yet, but from what I've seen, it actually sounds promising. (Although for the next one, it would be nice if they could not do a retread of an already-told story...)
Nothing's "taking away" from anything, as far as I can tell, overheated fans aside.
:rolleyes:
spoken like a true contrarian...
My character Tsin'xing
You know I get EXATLY what you mean, this 'New Trek' really undermines the 'historically established Star Trek' in a major way. I mean:
- Captain James T. Kirk replaced by an old, balding Frenchman (Jean Luc Picard) who hates kids.
- Mr. Spock replaced by an emotionless android (Lt. Data).
- Leonard 'Bones' McCoy replaced by a female redhead ' Dr. Beverly Crusher' (nice to look at, at least) with w whiney know it all brat in tow ('Wesly Crusher').
- Then we have an actual Klingon as partg of the crew? (Lt. Worf) -- I mean WTF! Kirk would never stand for such a thing in historically established Star Trek - they killed his only son.
^^^
Yep, the fans of this 'NuTrek' really "are trying to take away the historically established Trek (without which, their beloved NuTrek simply would not exist) by insisting that 'art needs to be updated to remain relevant'" -- I agree with you 100% - hell, I'll bet you in 26 years (by 2013) NO ONE will remember or even like this 'NuTrek'!
...
Oh wait, you mean your comment wasn't referring to the changes TNG brought to the Star Trek universe in 1987? Ooops. :cool::eek:;)
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
No, you obviously don't get what I was referring to in my posts
Sure, Gene was just in it for the poontang and the dollars, but the massive difference, is that it was his work to use as he pleased. He wasn't putting a new (but essentially the same) twist on another well-established concept. I appreciate that Hollywood, like Gene, is in it for the poontang and the dollars, that's what Hollywood is, but that doesn't make this recent Reboot Fever any less tasteless, or easy work for directors and writers who are better suited to commercials and music videos.
The reboot had nothing to do with whether the old stuff was good. It was about the studio making money. It's what studios do. "Blatantly money grabbing" is standard operating procedure is hollywood and has been since before Gene made the first Episode. You even admitted this.
So.... what are you really complaining about? Is it just the fact you didn't like it?
My character Tsin'xing
Precisely!
See the first segment of this reply... Also, to be specific, I didn't say that I didn't like Trek09 (I actually wanted to watch it this afternoon, but couldn't find it, and watched Knocked up instead. Wound up watching a much better written movie :cool: ) I'm quite happy to watch it as something to watch. My dislike, is twofold: JJ Abrams, and pretty much all the stuff he has had a hand in, and the Hollywood trend of re-booting, re-imagining, re-making and generally recycling anything they feel like doing, rather than putting out something more original. I'm sorry if that was not clear in my previous comments.
I am not specifically bashing 09 and Into Darkness, but what they represent in terms of the Hollywood trend. Equally, I find it frustrating when people respond to any apparent criticism of those films with "It's reinvigorated the franchise, brought in new fans!", for the simple reason that the films were not only not made with the idea of relaunching the franchise (just meant as pretty pictures for the masses...) but will most likely not continue beyond the usual trilogy format, which will then leave the franchise exactly where it was (which is absolutely fine) and it's no rocket science to see that the franchise will be anything but reinvigorated, but is simply being coincidentally temporarily resuscitated...
TRIBBLE TNG, TOS is where it's always been!
AND JJ is using TOS as his Muse.
He picked the best one.
JJ Trek is THE Trek now.
Before I reply, I hope you don't feel like I'm bashing you when I disagree. I actually think you make several good points. Even if I don't agree, I completely admit you might be absolutely right. We're all just speculating, really.
That said, the one area I don't agree is that there's no teeth to the claim that it's reinvigorating the franchise.
I don't think it's reinvigorating it in the way that others do, but there's definitely a strong chance it will extend the lifespan of the franchise.
Not because these movies are super-duper great and not because the fans love these movies so much they'll demand more Trek.
But because studios now see that Star Trek can still make money.
Once this iteration runs its course (and I agree, it's probably gonna' end as a trilogy), it's going to be much easier for filmmakers or showrunners to convince a studio to take a chance on a new Star Trek movie or series.
Before Abrams made these films, there was pretty much zero chance of a new series or a continuation of Trek as it was. After the Abrams films, I think studios will be much more willing to hear and consider new Star Trek ideas because the Abrams films have proven that Star Trek can still make money.
So I do think this movie has and will reinvigorate the franchise, even if it's not in the same way the defenders usually mean.
And no, I didn't think you were bashing me at all, as you could see the points I was making, rather than just thinking I was JJ Bashing
You really have no idea what your talking about. There is no recent trend of reboots and remakes in Hollywood. Hollywood has been doing this since the 50s.
Besides, Trek has been rebooted three times prior to JJ's new incarnation. You got TMP, TWOK, and TNG are all reboots. While they are not reboots as we see them in modern terms, but if you go back and actually watch them, those three mediums of Trek were trying to re-invent Trek for the modern age. TMP failed, but TWOK didn't and TNG didn't.
TWOK inspired four more movies and a tv series, while TNG inspired 25 seasons, four movies, many video games, lots of novels (this is all the 90s).
If you read about the history of Trek, Roddenberry was not a part of the movie franchise after TMP and after Season 1 of TNG (Which is what Roddenberry considered his ultimate vision of Trek in which why a number of Season 1 TNG rehashed a number of ).
Yes, TMP, TWOK and TNG could be considered re-boots of the franchise, I wouldn't deny that. What I would respectfully point out, however, is that they were done with the direct involvement of Gene Roddenberry because he wanted it to happen.
The Trek re-boots were being done purely for the money by Hollywood, and more importantly (as making money is what Hollywood is all about) could just as easily have been any other TV/film series which they thought would get bums on seats. How about re-booting Lost in Space, SeaQuest, Space Precinct, or Space:1999? There were rumors of a film based on Gerry Anderson's UFO, but I haven't heard anything more on other than Ali Larter was attached, in well over a year... Those haven't transpired for the simple reason that the powers that be clearly don't consider them enough of a crowd-puller, but at the end of the day, any one of those listed could be re-booted and be just as watchable as JJ's take on Trek. These re-makes aren't being done for any love of filmmaking, and as someone who studied it at college, I find that disappointing.
couldn't agree more. (that is if your talking about the new star trek movies).
Yet it's the way of things today. Unfortunately , today's film industry has no respect for the origins of good tv shows, or movies or books.
Long live all the greats of the good ol days.
todays world of tv and movies suck, all because they're too afraid to do whats right.
Bout the only show I like today now is "The Walking Dead". Great show, (as long as they don't ruin it). It's got originality, and now other tv channels head leaders are now wondering why it's so good.
Not once will they realize , it's due to originality and good thinking, instead of just copying.
What TOS was, and what TNG and DS9 became, were almost as much in spite of Gene as because of him.
Totally. Gene actually publicly stated that he didn't even consider Wrath of Khan as canon.
Honestly, I think if WoK were released in 2009 instead of JJ's Trek, it would have received just as much hate. I mean, WoK was basically a remake of TMP, with the main changes being more action, more battles, more explosions, and a revenge-driven villain.
Pretty much sounds like the same complaints about Abrams to me (for the most part).
Wrath of Khan was a seamless transition to me, you had vengeful Khan, and whaddya know. he's shooting at kirk! even motion picture opening scene was action packed violence..
cue Next Generation, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise.... they're still shootn at us!
man... they always shootin at us...
oh and don't forget the occasional 'peace' episode cause were the 'good' guys bit. real art I tell you!
cause sometimes its party time!
FYI, I'm not a zealot for the Abram films. The Kirk era movies are still my all-time favorite Trek iterations. I just think the Abram movies are a fun romp and give a good Trek fix.
Sure, it's not the same fix we got from TNG, so I can appreciate how TNG fans wouldn't like it. But as someone who grew up with TOS, I don't really have any problems with it. It took the original show 40 years to fully develop these characters. Abrams has had about 4 hours. Considering that - and the fact that he had a mandate to make a movie the masses would enjoy - I'd say he did a fine job.
^^^^^^^
Qft
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Link: "How the Battle Over 'Star Trek' Rights Killed J.J. Abrams' Grand Ambitions"
Abrams wanted to end all "Star Trek: The Original Series" merchandising. Movies, novels, tv-series, etc... If Abrams was able to have free reign, "Star Trek" would have been dismantlement. "Star Trek: TOS" makes $20 million dollars a year.
Imagine telling everyone that "Star Trek: TOS" never existed?
As long as Abrams is in charge of the movies, I personally think all "Star Trek" merchandising is in trouble.
So ripping off one of the best films in Star Trek ever and making new trek nothing more than a generic sci fi film.
Lets just look at a few things that was used
1. The Original Khan was name Khan Noonien Singh and was Indian which fit with the name
The new Khan is british and fit the name Harriman better than Khan
2. Old Khan used his mind to try and outwit Kirk tactically and thought he had strength he knew that may not always win the day
New Khan relied more on brute force rather than tatical thinking
3. Kirks death scene and how he died was a direct plagarism on Spocks death in the Wrath of Khan
4. Spocks KHANNNNN Scream was just plain cheese when Kirk did it in WOK it fitted as he is human and had a reason. Spock's just was plain annoying there was no need and quite frankly irritated me.
5. Kirks resurrection
Okay so since there was no Genesis device what d the use to resurrect Kirk. Magic blood Again irritating.
That is just a few things that annoyed me about STID and why I rank it as one of the worst ST films of all time the only one worse that ID is Star Trek V.
But not a fan of JJ Trek and will love to hear the complaints of the Star Wars fan when he messes with there beloved franchise.
Be Prepared for a Alternate timeline. Destruction of a planet possibly Tattoine, The Return of Jar Jar Binks and when the falcon drops into a debris field we will see the enterprise flying past.
Vice Admiral Volmack ISS Thundermole
Brigadier General Jokag IKS Gorkan
Centurion Kares RRW Tomalak
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
JJ has ruined Trek I have seen the comics that have spawned of the film and all there doing is rehashing the storylines from the scripts there isnt a single original story in them as far as I have seen in the previews.
I at least have original TOS novels still coming out and need these to remain as there only trek fix I can get now with the original cast.
Vice Admiral Volmack ISS Thundermole
Brigadier General Jokag IKS Gorkan
Centurion Kares RRW Tomalak
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
And then you have Into Darkness, which is the 9th highest grossing movie this year at $450 million, and that doesn't even include the hundred million more it will make in licensing to HBO or Showtime, DVD and Blue Ray sales, etc this year - and it's merchandising will make millions more per year for years to come.
It's about greed on both sides. Not about trying to destroy one or the other.
The TV show "The Walking Dead" is a loose remake of a comic-book serial - and one of the most popular characters on the show, whose name escapes me (I don't watch, so..), isn't even from the book, but is in fact a creation of the TV writers. And this is to be lauded for its pure originality, as opposed to the Abrams Trek films?
I mean, it's a bit like talking about how "brilliant" and "original" the HBO series Game of Thrones is...
I admit, I don't know the full details, but I do know that Roddenberry had a beef with the way Meyer took things. My guess, would be that he didn't like what Meyer was doing, but possibly lacked the clout to reign him in as he used to try and do while filming TOS. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for a writer to have their characters and settings used in a way other than originally intended, but being unable to do anything about it. I can only imagine it might be like a guy getting his buddy to take his wife to a movie for company, but them then hooking up...
Either way though, those movies were still done with Gene's 'awareness' (if not 100% approval) rather than someone thinking they would be a good way of getting more money in by riding on someone else's artistic coat-tails
EDIT: the DID reboot Lost in Space!
My character Tsin'xing