Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are you cool with the reboot? (~spoilers for 2009 movie~)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Are you cool with the reboot? (~spoilers for 2009 movie~)

    Are you cool with how the 2009 movie rebooted Star Trek? A straight up reboot would have lost me, but I like how they simply retooled the world of Star Trek via time travel. Granted, a lot of cosmetic changes were made for modern cinema, but the world of Star Trek is relatively intact. The only thing I really didn't like was the destruction of Vulcan. However, I think that was done to show us just how different this new Star Trek will be. I also like how they incorporated the original Spock to ease the transition for those who were resistant to change. Given that Spock was from the TNG era, I wish there'd been some mention of the Enterprise-E, but oh well. Another thing I didn't like was Kirk's promotion from cadet graduate to acting first officer to acting captain to legit captain. Knowledge without experience makes a poor leader. I hope this will be explored if they do a sequel.

    If you like the reboot, why? If not, why?

    #2
    I am deffinatly fine with the reboot, I loved the movie.

    Comment


      #3
      I don't like it. Not a fan of this rebooting fad.

      Comment


        #4
        I love reboots when they're done well. Trek was done fairly well by pretty decent actors. Some things I didn't like, such as how Kirk got promoted from Ensign to Captain during one movie. I'm not too keen on the destruction of Vulcan either, and Nero was a weak enemy (about on a par with Shinzon...). I also hated the excessive use of lens flare and shakycam, but other than that I loved it. Pretty good entertainment.
        sigpic

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Fan-e-Gate View Post
          I don't like it. Not a fan of this rebooting fad.
          Rebooting fad? I'm just asking about Star Trek's reboot. What's not to like?

          Originally posted by maneth View Post
          I love reboots when they're done well. Trek was done fairly well by pretty decent actors. Some things I didn't like, such as how Kirk got promoted from Ensign to Captain during one movie. I'm not too keen on the destruction of Vulcan either, and Nero was a weak enemy (about on a par with Shinzon...). I also hated the excessive use of lens flare and shakycam, but other than that I loved it. Pretty good entertainment.
          I totally agree with you on Kirk's promotion and the loss of Vulcan. I liked Nero, but didn't we already have a psychotic Romulan figure with a massive starship no one can stop? Oh wait, that was the last movie. The lens flares and shakycam is more J.J. Abrams, so if a new director stepped in, that could be dropped entirely.

          Comment


            #6
            Guess its just me but I LOVE the lens flare and shaky cam

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by maneth View Post
              I love reboots when they're done well. Trek was done fairly well by pretty decent actors. Some things I didn't like, such as how Kirk got promoted from Ensign to Captain during one movie. I'm not too keen on the destruction of Vulcan either, and Nero was a weak enemy (about on a par with Shinzon...). I also hated the excessive use of lens flare and shakycam, but other than that I loved it. Pretty good entertainment.
              My sentiments almost exactly. I will always be drinking a certain amount of haterade for the reboot because it means we won't see anything set in The Original Universe again, though.
              Originally posted by General Jumper One View Post
              Guess its just me but I LOVE the lens flare and shaky cam
              And you can keep them. I believe JJ said that the lens flare and shaky cam went overboard, and he'd cut back on them in the next one. Dammit, Jim! I want to SEE my space battles!
              sigpic
              More fun @ Spoofgate!

              Comment


                #8
                As someone that follows this Trek-stuff pretty closely, I'm fine with the 2009 film. Strictly speaking, it isn't a reboot. JJ created an alternated universe. The old universe is still - out there. They can go back to it for a future film or TV series. But, for the movies at least for now, this is the set of tinker-toys they will be using (at least for two more films). The movie did what it had to do - bring in new fans and make some good money. I also think it's a pretty slick Trek story and one that leaves a lot of potential new things open. Looking forward to the sequel in June 2012!
                sigpic

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by nx01a View Post
                  I will always be drinking a certain amount of haterade for the reboot because it means we won't see anything set in The Original Universe again, though.
                  Is that a bad thing? After 80 episodes and 7 movies, the original show's characters were played out. Rather than a predictable prequel (we know what happens to everyone), we got a time-travel story that rebooted the storyline. If those are the only two choices, I prefer the latter.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    i loved JJ trek
                    https://twitter.com/#!/Solar_wind84

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Snowman37 View Post
                      Is that a bad thing? After 80 episodes and 7 movies, the original show's characters were played out. Rather than a predictable prequel (we know what happens to everyone), we got a time-travel story that rebooted the storyline. If those are the only two choices, I prefer the latter.
                      Their stories were tapped out which is why they went and created TNG. The abramsverse isn't really "new" Trek, not like how TNG was.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        If you want to watch a decent scifi movie, it's not a bad way to kill two hours.

                        As part of a larger franchise, one that has spanned 40 years, 10 previous movies, 4 live action series and an animated series, it was a load of ********. Reboots are one thing, but this is something else. Fan made stuff like New Voyages or even fan fiction is closer to canon than this movie. Short of Spock being half human, son of Sarek and Amanda, I think everything else was changed.

                        sigpic

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by jsonitsac View Post
                          Their stories were tapped out which is why they went and created TNG. The abramsverse isn't really "new" Trek, not like how TNG was.
                          Originally, Star Trek was to return as Star Trek: Phase II with everyone except Leonard Nimoy. Spock would have been replaced with a full-blooded Vulcan. Due to the success of Star Wars, this was abandoned in favor of Star Trek: The Motion Picture which lead to sequels. When Paramount finally relaunched Star Trek on TV, the original show's cast were older and resigned to feature films. Naturally, a spinoff was the way to go. It wasn't because the original was tapped out. TNG was the exact same premise as the original show, only new people on a new Enterprise a century later.


                          Originally posted by SaberBlade View Post
                          As part of a larger franchise, one that has spanned 40 years, 10 previous movies, 4 live action series and an animated series, it was a load of ********. Reboots are one thing, but this is something else. Fan made stuff like New Voyages or even fan fiction is closer to canon than this movie. Short of Spock being half human, son of Sarek and Amanda, I think everything else was changed.
                          The whole point was to abandon canon, because Star Trek had grown stale. Aside from cosmetic changes, what was so drastically different? According to the writers, the 2009 movie's timeline doesn't diverge from the 1966-2005 timeline until Nero's ship arrives on the day of Kirk's birth. It's just a time-travel story where the timeline does not get repaired.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Snowman37 View Post
                            The whole point was to abandon canon, because Star Trek had grown stale. Aside from cosmetic changes, what was so drastically different? According to the writers, the 2009 movie's timeline doesn't diverge from the 1966-2005 timeline until Nero's ship arrives on the day of Kirk's birth. It's just a time-travel story where the timeline does not get repaired.
                            I actually don't believe that. In fact, I'm probably in a group of fans that believes that a time line other than the canon time line was altered. The thought is that since the Kelvin is so dramatically different than every other Starfleet design it must be part of a different reality.

                            Of course, this is to keep me in a state of denial of what they did to Romulus in the canon universe.

                            Finally, why do they have to relaunch the TOS characters to begin with? What's wrong with doing something different and new? Or is that too radical for Hollywood executives to even comprehend?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by jsonitsac View Post
                              I actually don't believe that. In fact, I'm probably in a group of fans that believes that a time line other than the canon time line was altered. The thought is that since the Kelvin is so dramatically different than every other Starfleet design it must be part of a different reality.
                              The movie leaves it open to perception. Those unwilling to accept change can believe the time-travel adventure simply created a second timeline, allowing the original to continue. I subscribe to the idea that this new timeline simply overwrites the original. Given it's just fiction, why not? As for the Kelvin being so dramatically different, it's called cosmetic changes in favor of being more cinematic. It's no different from the Klingons and Borg getting updated for the movies. J.J. Abrams wanted to show his vision of Star Trek rather than continue Roddenberry's vision.

                              Finally, why do they have to relaunch the TOS characters to begin with? What's wrong with doing something different and new? Or is that too radical for Hollywood executives to even comprehend?
                              J.J. Abrams has been quoted as saying that the spinoffs disconnected for him. He wanted to do Star Trek, meaning Kirk and crew on the Enterprise, not a spinoff.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X