Also, while I grant that the first reboot was visually stunning and certain to grab attention, there were plot holes large enough to fly a Galaxy-class ship through.![]()
Also, while I grant that the first reboot was visually stunning and certain to grab attention, there were plot holes large enough to fly a Galaxy-class ship through.![]()
Not to mention the worst "science" ever seen in a Trek project, and a total rejection of Starfeelt as a meritocracy in favor of dumb force-of-personality moments and a series of absurdly contrived coincidences.
I wasn't a fan of that film, and I don't expect to like this one.
But hey, I'm a special case: I'm one of the original viewers who was there from the very first broadcast in 1966. One of the folks who wrote letters to NBC to save the show in 1968. I attended some of the first conventions. I actually saw ST:The Motion(less) Picture twice the week it opened. You're dealing with a Trekker who faithfully watched all the follow-up films and series (except for some of DS9, and that was mostly because it coincided with my kids' infancy and I couldn't focus.) To have been a major Trek guy since 1966, only to have that entire timeline rendered "invalid" by the 2009 film... well, it's pretty galling!
Personally I was very happy that the last one scrapped the timeline that had been built up over the years, and the accompanying quibbling. It had become too calcified. We're starting with a fresh cast, fresh stories, and new a direction.
Last edited by vintage68; 06-06-2012 at 06:34 PM.
Slow down, you'll get a more harmonious outcome.
I wouldn't necessarily object to the idea of a complete reboot, despite being a heavily involved fan(seen every episode of every series barring the animated one; every movie; you get the picture) as long as they do it well. And re-doing existing TOS plots doesn't exactly qualify as a "new story".
I liked the continuity; I didn't consider it calcified. I saw it as building on its predecessors. I even liked Enterprise, because I saw that as laying foundations that the audience could identify.
I'll stop now.
Beams self off soapbox
You are one of the few other people I've heard say that. I completely agree with you. I'm not sure why people liked it so much. Just a lot of yelling, running about and explosions: Michael Bay meets Luc Besson in space. While I am a fan of most of the Star Trek series and films, I'm not a trekkie and I still didn't care for that last film that much.
"As a kid, I used to abide by the judgment of Brooks Brothers in New York. I think I'm away from that now."
-Fred Astaire
I can understand it wasn't for everybody, but this was actually one of my favourite things about it. I would argue that it did precisely the opposite of invalidating the existing timeline. It would have invalidated it had it been a pure reboot and just done its own thing. By rendering this effectively a parallel universe, what they have done is left the original to stand as is, untouched, while giving themselves the freedom to do something new without being tied to having to set up predestined outcomes (one reason why so many prequels are weak).
If in doubt - overdress.
Vivienne Westwood
I was very torn about about the alternate universe thing with the last Star Trek. As much as I wanted to love it, it seemed contrived to me. I kept trying to relate it back to what I know and it was always a fight.
It's redeeming features were some of the performances, or rather, the virtual impersonations these young actors attempted of the original cast members. I also enjoy watching the technical evolution of the special effects through the years.
'There is a fine line between art and fondling.'
- J.H.P.
I thought Karl Urban stole the show. Bones was always my favorite.
Dennise
If you always do what interests you, at least one person is pleased. --Katherine Hepburn