SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Joined: Jun 10 2008 Posts: 172

I was a huge trekkie in my youth. Had tons of books, all the movies, watched all the shows, I even went to a convention once. I am rediculously excited for the new movie. It's gotten stellar reviews, the previews look awesome and the cast seems pretty great as well. Since my dad got me into Star Trek when I was little, and he doesn't go to the movies that often i figured I'd take him to see it at the IMAX tommorrow. I can't wait. Are you guys excited? How do you feel about how some trekkies are pissed about the canon reset? I personally could careless about it. The last series sucked and most the movies haven't been that great since First Contact anyways. They need to change it up if fans want to see more series and movies coming out. So how do you feel about all this?

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Gonna try to see it Sunday

APLETHORAOFPINATAS wrote:

How do you feel about how some trekkies are pissed about the canon reset? I personally could careless about it. The last series sucked and most the movies haven't been that great since First Contact anyways. They need to change it up if fans want to see more series and movies coming out.

The video I posted in the Trek thread sums up my feelings. I'll repost it here. I basically agree with you:

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

Joined: Jun 10 2008 Posts: 172

Yea, I saw that on Will Wheaton's blog. its pretty damn funny. Incidently he loves the new movie. There is a crazy picture of him up that he looks competly deranged after seeing it.

Posted: May 07 2009 11:44 am

Haha, I do want to see this, and Cattivo that vid is priceless and soooo true.

Posted: May 07 2009 11:53 am

Ah thank god. If Will likes it, it honestly can't be THAT bad. He knows his Trek and doesn't tend to put up with bullshit.

I am seeing it on Saturday if all goes well. Looking forward to it.

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

It's Wil, gosh people

Joined: Jun 10 2008 Posts: 172

yes, I know its Wil, it was a typo. I'm sure Wil won't mind.

Posted: May 07 2009 01:01 pm

APLETHORAOFPINATAS wrote:

How do you feel about how some trekkies are pissed about the canon reset? I personally could careless about it. The last series sucked and most the movies haven't been that great since First Contact anyways. They need to change it up if fans want to see more series and movies coming out.

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that Paramount, desperate to make money off of Star Trek, and unable to create a series that people actually cared about since DS9, has decided to go back to mine the original series for more money, since that's the one that's most universally loved. But now the actors who played those parts are either old or dead. So what does that mean? FRANCHISE RESET!

It's a shameless attempt for money, and it's helmed by a guy whose other movies have been shallow, visceral, and soulless. Between this and the Three Stooges movie, I'm mad as hell. Some franchises are best left alone. What's next, is Hollywood going to make a new "Little Tramp" movie? I mean, we don't REALLY need Charlie Chaplin for the role, do we?

Let me put it this way, Plethora: imagine I took Beethoven's 9th, added in explosions and lasers, and went on to be hailed by all major medium outlets as a visionary who had reinvented a dead franchise? You'd hate me, and I wouldn't blame you. This is no different.

Posted: May 07 2009 01:23 pm

A large part of me agrees with you, Syd, but I'm willing to withold judgement until I see it. It MIGHT work....maybe... Confused

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

While you have a point Syd, it's still a good idea, and if it's been executed well, it will be entertaining and rejuvenate an otherwise dead franchise.

Syd Lexia wrote:

unable to create a series that people actually cared about since DS9

Not nearly enough people cared about DS9, though. Its ratings were horrible, and the only reason it's not the lowest rated Trek is because Voyager and Enterprise followed it, which were even worse series. I respect DS9 for actually trying to make good, fresh stories while having an overarching story, but the characters, which are always the heart of the show (see TOS), were dull and I could not get behind them. The only character that I actually found interesting was Kira, and that's because she was hot. Worf was interesting, but he's a TNG character, and from what I've seen, they really screwed up his character arc with back and forth crap with his klingon history. Overall, no one wanted a Trek series about a space station, the Cardassians, or the Bajorans.

With the "next generation" series of shows, they really have run the franchise into the ground. The only way to go was to go back to the thing that made the phenom in the first place - the original series. Present it for a new generation and get the franchise interesting again. Any other option would have a post-Nemesis, post-Voyager series, and that would just be more of the same. Berman ran the franchise into the ground with overexposure and recycled storylines. The whole process began when they decided after Rodenberry's death to run two series at the same time by creating DS9 which Rodenberry had rightly nixed. There hasn't been good new Trek since the release of First Contact in 96. Finally, the franchise has a chance to produce good quality media again.

Since I became bored with new Trek, I rediscovered TOS and fell in love with Trek all over again, and it's now my favorite Trek series. Nothing can beat the characters in that show, especially Kirk and Spock. Seeing new stories of young versions of these characters is a Godsend for me. It's get no better than those two characters, so I welcome fresh storylines revolving around them.

Posted: May 07 2009 01:45 pm

I am, it looks awsome! Very Happy

Joined: Jun 10 2008 Posts: 172

hmm.. I think I have to disagree with you there. Your point about the 9th Symphony implies that i feel some sort of owenership of it, responibility to the purity of the piece. I do not. But then maybe this is also a case of simply disagreeing on a principle. They don't have a responbility to you as a fan to do what you think should be done. if that was the case they'd be paying you not JJ Abrahms. I don't know why I bother even answering your thread considering you are completly jaded and depressing.

Posted: May 07 2009 01:56 pm

I used to be a huge Star Trek fan. Then they kept pumping out total shit and I couldn't care anymore. By the time the last movie came around, Plethora and Syd were fucking PUMPED to go see it, and I figured I'd go just for kicks. Unsurprisingly, the movie was fucking dreadful.

That said, I'm pretty excited about this movie. It looks like it will be a good movie and won't have to rely on the name Star Trek to try to make money.

Syd Lexia wrote:

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that Paramount, desperate to make money off of Star Trek, and unable to create a series that people actually cared about since DS9, has decided to go back to mine the original series for more money, since that's the one that's most universally loved. But now the actors who played those parts are either old or dead. So what does that mean? FRANCHISE RESET!

It's a shameless attempt for money, and it's helmed by a guy whose other movies have been shallow, visceral, and soulless. Between this and the Three Stooges movie, I'm mad as hell. Some franchises are best left alone. What's next, is Hollywood going to make a new "Little Tramp" movie? I mean, we don't REALLY need Charlie Chaplin for the role, do we?

Let me put it this way, Plethora: imagine I took Beethoven's 9th, added in explosions and lasers, and went on to be hailed by all major medium outlets as a visionary who had reinvented a dead franchise? You'd hate me, and I wouldn't blame you. This is no different.

Wow, your angry fanboy is showing. I'm angry at the idea of them redoing the Three Stooges, but that's because those guys WERE the Three (To six) Stooges. The entire show was them and their antics, and anything that follows will be just stealing their name and trying to copy them in hopes of making a quick buck. It's also worth noting that the Stooges were consistently excellent.
This, however, is totally different. First of all, the Star Trek franchise has been driven into the fucking ground. There is absolutely nothing left that could possibly be done to destroy the Star Trek franchise. More importantly, whether you think that Star Trek couldn't have existed without that original cast, the fact of the matter is that, unlike the Three Stooges, Star Trek is more than that core cast. Star Trek created an entire universe. Unfortunately, they then filled the entire universe with shit that is unfortunately canon; when they killed Landfill in Beerfest and then replaced him with his twin brother so it was like Landfill never left, it was funny because it was a comedy movie and it was done in a comedic fashion. When you do it with Data and pretend it's a serious plot, that's fucking stupid.

Long story short, it's a fucking movie. As a fan, you should be grateful that they took the Simpsons' all purpose "Plan B" and moved the town 5 miles to the left so they could start over and create a better franchise instead of just trying to make another movie on top of the mountain of shit that they've created for themselves.

Posted: May 07 2009 02:10 pm

Excellent points Jeebus, and eloquently put.

I somehow missed the DS9 reference is Syd's post though. God dammit, am I the only Trekkie on Earth who actually LIKED Enterprise??? Captain Archer was GOOD dammit, and Scott Bakula played him very well. Evil

Posted: May 07 2009 02:18 pm

SoldierHawk wrote:

Excellent points Jeebus, and eloquently put.

I somehow missed the DS9 reference is Syd's post though. God dammit, am I the only Trekkie on Earth who actually LIKED Enterprise??? Captain Archer was GOOD dammit, and Scott Bakula played him very well. Evil

Sorry, Hawk. Sometimes things just feel so right.

Posted: May 07 2009 02:47 pm

I liked Bakula. Heck, I even liked Emterprise for awhile. It may two crucial mistakes though:

1. Having a theme song with words. A theme song written by Rod Stewart no less.
2. The whole post-9/11 thing that a poorly veiled metaphor for tolerance towards Muslims.

Nemesis was an enjoyable movie. I don't really understand what people dislike about it.

It seems like most of the people excited for the Star Trek movie are people who "used to like Trek" and "want to see something new". Well, Voyager and Enterprise were new, and you didn't like those. And this ISN'T new. It's taking the characters you actually DO like and making them either young and sexy, or completely goofy. Simon Pegg as Scotty? Really? Why is this exciting to you?

Jeebus, the people who are excited for this movie are the real fanboys. You so desperately want Trek to be cool and relevant again, that you're willing to latch onto Hollywood's new extreme vision for it, rather than just hold onto your cherished childhood memories of it. That's a great idea. I mean, Hollywood has never ruined your favorite properties before, right? Especially not in the 21st century.

"But Syd, the franchise is already dead! Things can't POSSIBLY get any worse than they already are!"

Then I guess you haven't seen any of the recent remakes/reimaginings of old slasher films. The last five or six movies in the Friday The 13th franchise were silly, but the reset movie was just plain boring.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

SoldierHawk wrote:

am I the only Trekkie on Earth who actually LIKED Enterprise??? Captain Archer was GOOD dammit, and Scott Bakula played him very well. Evil

Archer was boring and Bakula made it worse with his terrible acting. Sorry, it's my opinion which is the majority opinion as well.

I can't see videos cuz I'm at work - I hope Rycona posted Bakula acting in "A Night in Sickbay". That was the show and Bakula at its worst, and finally convinced me to stop watching the show with its horrible retread plots, destruction of the Vulcans, and forcing of TNG aliens into the show. The only thing the show got right was the Andorians.

Posted: May 07 2009 02:59 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

As a dedicated fan, I feel that they owe me.

Everyone else wrote:

They've given you hundreds of hours of entertainment for free! If anything you owe them!

Syd Lexia wrote:

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Syd Lexia wrote:

Nemesis was an enjoyable movie. I don't really understand what people dislike about it.

Almost everything. Huge plotholes, the boring B4 subplot, and overdone action scenes. This site explains it perfectly: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Nemesis/Pictorial-1.html

Syd Lexia wrote:

It seems like most of the people excited for the Star Trek movie are people who "used to like Trek" and "want to see something new". Well, Voyager and Enterprise were new, and you didn't like those.

We didn't like Voyager and Enterprise because they were bad shows with old plots. None of us have seen this new movie yet, so we don't even know if it's good yet. It certainly looks good, so give it a f'ing chance.

This same ridiculous mentality prejudged Wolverine to be a horrible movie. Then I went to see it and enjoyed the damn thing. It wasn't frickin' Shakespeare or the Dark Knight, but it was enjoyable and far better than X3.

Syd Lexia wrote:

the people who are excited for this movie are the real fanboys. You so desperately want Trek to be cool and relevant again, that you're willing to latch onto Hollywood's new extreme vision for it, rather than just hold onto your cherished childhood memories of it. That's a great idea. I mean, Hollywood has never ruined your favorite properties before, right? Especially not in the 21st century.

I'm looking forward to it because it looks good and is further adventuring of my favorite Trek characters. I don't like butchering and modernizations just as much as you, but this is not necessarily that. Let's see the movie, then we can see if it's just fluff for the masses or not. My guess is it's both fluff and classic Trek substance.

Listen, the old methods of retread storylines with esoteric minutiae that only pathetic losers in their mothers' basements liked is what scared away all the people that made TNG the most successful syndicated show in history. Something has to be done to make that cross-appeal, hopefully without missing the parts where Trek is "too far up their own ass in messages."

No one likes their own little thing suddenly accepted by the group. Batman's rampant popularity annoys me a little now, but at least it guarantees new & good Batman material. If this increases the Trek franchise's popularity again, I hope it guarantees the same things that the Batman franchise has now.

Posted: May 07 2009 03:16 pm

Yeah, Jeebus, that's exactly what I said. Rolling Eyes

You're right though. Gene Roddenberry doesn't own me anything. Not a goddam thing. He created Trek and he did a good job with it. George Lucas also doesn't owe me anything. Star Wars is his baby, and whether or not I like all his decisions, it is his creation, and he has the right to do whatever he wants with it.

But Star Trek is now in the hands of a guy who was barely born when the original series first aired. A guy who created the television show Felicity. A guy who directed Cloverfield. And he does owe me. These are not his characters, and he is very limited in the ways that they can be properly handled. Maybe he'll get it right. Maybe it'll be a good. But as I said, I feel that a lot of the hype surrounding this movie is because Trekkies want it to be sucessful because they have a huge fucking chip on their shoulder because Star Wars is still relevant and their franchise got run into the ground. This is probably not going to be the next Battlestar Galactica. Sorry.

And what about you? Wasn't you're argument basically "they owe me a good movie after Insurrection and Nemesis"? Doesn't that make your previous statement make you look like a massive douchebag and a giant fucking hypocrite?

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Interesting review by the Onion, which gives credence to both sides of the argument:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/star-trek,27714/

They give it a B+, which is difficult to get if you're an action movie being reviewed by the Onion. With the recent exception of Crank 2, most of the movies aimed at large audiences usually get some sort of C or D.

I forgot to mention earlier, another reason I have faith with this adaption is because Leonard Nimoy supports it, and he has consistently known what Trek is all about. He famously turned down a role in Generations because he knew the script sucked.

Posted: May 07 2009 03:51 pm

You WEREN'T born when Star Trek originally aired, so why do you have the right to be so fucking uppity about it? And that wasn't my argument at all. My argument was that rebooting the franchise is a good idea since it's been run into the ground and this is their only hope to make a good movie. They don't owe me a good movie, but I agree with this decision because I think it could provide one.

Posted: May 07 2009 04:08 pm

True, but I am also not arrogant enough to think I can - or should - reinvent the franchise. But I know what I want from Trek.

The Onion wrote:

But it is, undeniably, a reconsideration of what constitutes Star Trek, one that deemphasizes heady concepts and plainly stated humanist virtues in favor of breathless action punctuated by bursts of emotion.

...and that's not what I want from Trek.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

I want half of it like that; I still want messages.

It can't be all made up of the latter, then it would be boring like the first movie. Khan had a nice mix of the two, but anal fanboys still lambaste Khan and its successors in preference for the painful experience of TMP. It had a great ending, but it's not worth the two hour snoozefest to get to it (Not to mention the plot was a ripoff of the Nomad ep "The Changeling" in the original series). I sincerely hope you're not one of those fans Syd, as you sort of sound like one of those in this thread.

My hope, since there doesn't appear to be any messages in Abrams' version, in light of that Onion review, is that they're just setting everything up and trying to get mainstream support before getting into both intellectually stimulating and action-packed storylines. Since Abrams often abandons projects, I see it like this, with someone else stepping in where they left off. But that might just be wishful thinking....

...It's a long, hard road to get to the quality and popularity of Khan and Voyage Home.

Posted: May 07 2009 04:31 pm

My favorite Trek movies are 2-4, and First Contact.

TMP bored me the first time I saw it. Having seen the digitally restored version though, I like it a lot better. Like many late 70s, early 80s films, the film quality was not great so the movie was ended being very dark, to the point where there were large portions where you couldn't see what was going on. The original Terminator film was like as well. But in the restored version, the picture clarity is fantastic and it really makes the film a lot more enjoyable. Also, the film was reintroducing the characters after a ten year absence, so there was a LOT of exposition. It may have been excessive, but I appreciate what they were trying to do.