STAR TREK: REBOOTED FOR THE WRONG REASONS

Yup, yet another blogger with an ax to grind about the new movie as usual:

Of all the holies in the geek realm, Star Trek was a major pillar of geek culture. Before George Lucas combined the works of Frank Herbert, J.R.R. Tokein and Akira Kurosawa to create Star Wars, geeks pored over the original Trek episodes with the fine tooth combs of their intellect, piecing together the facts and events to create a history and time line, a canon that was adhered to strictly. Books and fanfic expanded on the original, three-year run, conventions were created and attended. The minutiae of the Trek universe were obsessively cataloged and dwelled upon by fans the world over. You weren't any kind of a Trek fan if you didn't know that Zefram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri was the inventor of warp drive, that Kirk was from Iowa, that Scotty was an "old Aberdeen pub crawler," that Mark Lenard, who'd played Spock's father Saarek in the second season episode "Journey to Babel," had also played the Romulan commander in the first season episode "Balance of Terror." It was this familiarity that became the foundations of early geek subculture.

But that familiarity is completely gone now. They've turned Trek into something sexy, edgy, flawed and totally unfamiliar, using the brand name to make it something marketable to a new generation. The movie relies on the fact that geeks the world over have made these characters pop culture icons, yet does everything it can to change them from what the geeks know and love. While this isn't the first time in the Trek universe that this has happened, it's a definitive event. The geeks can't blame J.J. Abrams for the breaking of the trust, but they can blame him for making it impossible to go back.

One of the reasons why, as one poster said, J.J. Abrams & Co. had better only make about three or four films and then leave before their names are blasted online while three sheets to the wind, and why I still have the same signature at the bottom I've always had:

The thing is, all of that history, continuity and minutiae is still there for geeks to pour over. Only now there's an eleventh film to add more to it.

This just smacks of someone resentful of the film's popularity because now he or she can no longer claim ownership over Star Trek. They have to share it with everyone else who saw and enjoyed the film.

oh dear the movie is not good to another Prime Trek fan why can people just think of it as a addition to the Trek family I thought the film was a loving homage to the original series and a fast paced fun action packed adventure.

^What amuses me is that these are the SAME people who regularly dissed Rick Berman and Co.

Now, they actually sound nostalgic for the good ol' days--when all they could whine about was the fact that Berman, Braga, and the rest never let a good story get in the way of the facts--canon, technobabble and all.

(I happen to be less critical of B&B than many, BTW....)

It seems to me that JJ and the Supreme Court are as different from the old gang as night and day.

You know, when you see reports of sales going through the roof for every single branch series in the Franchise to date...as a direct consequence of this movie...it tells me at least one thing: we're not done with any of them yet. And we've got new toys to play with as well.

One can only assume some people actually enjoyed being shunned and ridiculed. I was loved Star Trek shamelessly when it was super-nerdy to do so. I still love Star Trek now that it's vaguely more cool to do so. I have no qualms with people not liking the movie: as they say, there is no accounting for tastes. But it sounds more and more that some people hated it exactly because it made Star Trek more popular. That, I can never understand.

^Hating prosperity is a curious thing, mate. It's an interesting psycological problem, indeed. Ayn Rand, as I recall, analyzed this a great deal. She diagnosed it as simple envy--hatred of success because it wasn't your success.

To wit...maybe they're just all, "Where were you pop-culture types when we needed you most? Where were you when Voyager and Enterprise were tanking? Where were you when Insurrection and Nemesis failed to reach the numbers of FirstContact? Where were you when Paramount decided to give Trek a rest, because it seemed like people were tired of Trek?"

^What amuses me is that these are the SAME people who regularly dissed Rick Berman and Co.

Now, they actually sound nostalgic for the good ol' days--when all they could whine about was the fact that Berman, Braga, and the rest never let a good story get in the way of the facts--canon, technobabble and all.

(I happen to be less critical of B&B than many, BTW....)

It seems to me that JJ and the Supreme Court are as different from the old gang as night and day.

So...in the end, there are some people who will never be satified.

No...matter...what.

Click to expand...

<---- Blasted Rick Berman...

LOVE the new movie. It was an awesome fast paced action movie with all the things I thought made trek great. Didn't take itself super serious, and it didn't bore you with long drawn out psuedo-science.

You know, I like the new movie, too, saw it twice, and enjoyed it a lot, and bought the DVD, but even I can see it had problems/issues and was not perfect.

I'm disturbed by the apparent boiler-plate insults, chiding and belittling many of you have for anyone who dares question the movie. Gives the impression gushing praise is all that's allowed here.

It's possible to like the film while still seeing its faults.

A massive starship being built on the ground?
The ridiculous engineering set and its nonsensical "layout," if it has a layout at all. (Where the hell was Uhura when big-hand, numb tongue Kirk found her anyway?)
A glass window on the bridge.
From engineering to bridge via turbolift in 1.5 seconds. (I know, speed of plot)

The appearance, size and weaponry of Nero's ship does not seem to jive with it being a mining ship. I remember reading that there's something out there indicating the weapons are Borg, but that's not mentioned in the movie.

There are valid points on the coincidences mounting up to nearly remarkable levels.

Every time I come into this forum I see few if any new threads. I'd think there'd be tons. Maybe it's this "love it or we'll call you names" mentality that is silencing discussion.

A civilization which can control gravity and which can turn matter to energy, squirt it thousands of miles, and turn it back into matter, can build a starship anywhere they damn well please.

This is the FUTURE...and yeah, by that time, they can also dig big honking holes in Iowa that are not there now.

Click to expand...

Maybe they should have kept with long-standing Trek tradition and build it in a cave, then.

Any time a Trek episode goes underground I have to work to keep my eyes from rolling.

Technology or not, it just makes more sense for a space vessel to be built in space. I'm sure they'd have the technology to enable that as well. The only reason I can see for why it's on the ground is so Kirk can roll up and stare at it from his motorcycle - another coincidence.