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

[SaberBlade]

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.

Star Trek going stale was an excuse. Fans didn't like ENT's three season Xindi arc or the time travel elements. It didn't last seven seasons so was stale. It wouldn't have been so stale if they ended the Xindi story a season early and did more of those great two/three parters like season four.

The problem with Star Trek, is the movie doesn't diverge from the original timeline but pisses all over it and calls it rain. There is doing things different to the original, and then there is what Star Trek does.

[Snowman37]

Star Trek going stale was an excuse.

Stale as in people lost interest.

Fans didn't like ENT's three season Xindi arc or the time travel elements. It didn't last seven seasons so was stale. It wouldn't have been so stale if they ended the Xindi story a season early and did more of those great two/three parters like season four.

First off, the Xindi arc only lasted one season. Second, the Temporal Cold War was barely there. The TCW was only touched upon two or three times a year. It didn't last seven seasons, because of low ratings and studio apathy. Basically, the show was reinvented twice. For two years, we got episodic adventures. The third year brought the Xindi saga. The fourth and final year brought two-parters, trilogies, and a few stand-alones. The theme of the fourth year was also foreshadowing the Federation. Had the show continued, we'd have seen the foundation rather than a flash-forward finale.

The problem with Star Trek, is the movie doesn't diverge from the original timeline but pisses all over it and calls it rain.

Clarify.

[jsonitsac]

the problem with star trek, is the movie doesn't diverge from the original timeline but pisses all over it and calls it rain. There is doing things different to the original, and then there is what star trek does.

green!

[SaberBlade]

Stale as in people lost interest.


First off, the Xindi arc only lasted one season. Second, the Temporal Cold War was barely there. The TCW was only touched upon two or three times a year. It didn't last seven seasons, because of low ratings and studio apathy. Basically, the show was reinvented twice. For two years, we got episodic adventures. The third year brought the Xindi saga. The fourth and final year brought two-parters, trilogies, and a few stand-alones. The theme of the fourth year was also foreshadowing the Federation. Had the show continued, we'd have seen the foundation rather than a flash-forward finale.


Clarify.

People lost interest because they didn't like what the show did. That's not stale, it's just bad decision making. I wouldn't say Stargate got stale because the SGU producers decided to do something new and people lost interest.

I don't mean the Xindi arc lasted three seasons, I mean the three seasons of "Xindi and time travel elements". Can't really call the Temporal Cold War an arc, the Suliban showed up every so often but there was no real arc. When I say the Xindi arc should have lasted a season less, well what is there to say, it shouldn't have happened. They should have went from two to the stories written for four. Would have been better.

As for clarifying;

• Enterprise was built in San Francisco, not Iowa (won't get into the built on ground or in space issue). Lame way to connect Kirk with the ship.
• Chekov was 13 when the movie takes place. He shouldn't have been there.
• The Enterprise wasn't just launched when the movie took place, it was launched the same year Chekov was born.
• April, not Pike was first Enterprise Captain.
• Spock and even Pike had already been on the Enterprise for a few years.
• What Romulans look like should not have been known for another 10 years or so (from the date of the movie).
• Beaming onto a ship while it's travelling at warp speed, from a planet. Scotty did some amazing things in TOS, but that was complete BS. Ignores Trek transporter technology. Not even Dominion transporters were that good.Kirk
• Sulu didn't join the Enterprise and become a helmsman. He was a Scientist and over time, moved to Helm so shouldn't have been positioned there.
• Spock and Sarek were not that friendly.
• Vulcan was never destroyed, there is a good one.
• Kirk being made Captain
• About to get his ass handed to him for cheating (rather than being commended)

some more I could add, but tired. off to bed

[Replicator Todd]

I loved Trek 11(2009), its one of my favorite movies...ever. And I'm not a Trekkie! Or a huge fan of alot of today's movies. IMO it was the "Star Wars" version of Star Trek.

I loved how it kept the original universe intact with the whole alternate timeline/universe scenario. I loved how Old Spock was in the movie. Leonard Nimoy is fantastic.

The music is great too.

[Pharaoh Atem]

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

same here it gave everything a new fresh feel on top of the new ships and everythign else.

[Saquist]

I'm okay with it because it doesn't even remotely resemble old Trek in seriousness, sets, ships or plot. It was a good Fluff movie but I won't be going back to theaters over and over again for it.

[maneth]

I love the Bourne trilogy but the Academy was insane to give one of them an award for best cinematography. Shakycam's ruled action movies since then, and I detest and resent it.

[JanineGrant2]

I love the reboot because it's an interesting origin story of Kirk with a twist (the Spock from the future)

[Ice Wolf]

Not really a fan of the new movie sure it's a good popcorn flick and if I turn my brain off it is quite enjoyable, but like Terminator: Salvation that is all it is. It has massive flaws and supremely idiot story elements. It is like the director/writer went "wouldn't it be cool if this happened?" and then just wrote it in without bothering to do the work to try to make it plausible. With a few small changes it could have been a great movie without the ridiculus and stupid elements that ruin it.

[Ripley2012]

Replicator Todd: I loved Trek 11(2009), its one of my favorite movies...ever. And I'm not a Trekkie!

I agree!! For those who had never become star trek fans or had not endeavored star trekdom, this movie was a great way to introduce the franchise!