ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Is Star Trek 2009 Not For Trekkies?

The1701

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10

Report this Feb. 22 2011, 5:06 am

It's been my opinion that Star Trek movies have been up until 2009, cookie cutter movies. None of them really evolved the franchise/universe/timeline and for me whilst I love them all to different degrees, they were simply made out of the popularity of the TV series.


In 2009 that really did all change. I'm not going to go into great depths but It was obvious that Star Trek from Insurrection/Voyager and Nemesis/Enterprise were running on empty creatively. Star Trek was tired.


JJ Abrams comes along and BAM Trek comes back, reengages a wider, broader audience and gives the franchise a purpose and relevancy in and for the modern world. Forget the ridiculous opinions that this movie betrayed the fans or insulted the canon - canon is a ridiculous concept anyway - stupid - it's all crap and over emotional fans stuck in their ways - if anything could be said about these fans is that they have been for far too long stuck with the notion that Star Trek has to be made a certain way - a way that in the end killed it. 


the 2009 movie was a fantastic change of pace, it brought the Star Trek myth alive in a way that had never been seen before and like TNG before it, it was the first time Star Trek had actually embraced it's own notion of boldly going where no one has gone before.


The franchise evolved and embraced a third generation of it's legacy on May 8th and as far as I'm concerned, all for the better. A new generation can now enjoy the qualities that made Star Trek so enjoyable for my generation - I'm an 80's kid, I was brought up with TNG - that Star Trek spoke to me, this Star Trek will speak to a whole new generation and that alone is brilliant. All you winers out there have to accept that something like Star Trek can't stay in one place or tell stories one way or to one group of people forever.


Trekkers/Trekkies - who cares, it's just a word used to define a group of people - it means very little other than that.


 

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Feb. 22 2011, 9:15 am

[quote]Feb. 22 2011, 1:06 pm



It's been my opinion that Star Trek movies have been up until 2009, cookie cutter movies. None of them really evolved the franchise/universe/timeline and for me whilst I love them all to different degrees, they were simply made out of the popularity of the TV series.




In 2009 that really did all change. I'm not going to go into great depths but It was obvious that Star Trek from Insurrection/Voyager and Nemesis/Enterprise were running on empty creatively. Star Trek was tired.




JJ Abrams comes along and BAM Trek comes back, reengages a wider, broader audience and gives the franchise a purpose and relevancy in and for the modern world. Forget the ridiculous opinions that this movie betrayed the fans or insulted the canon - canon is a ridiculous concept anyway - stupid - it's all crap and over emotional fans stuck in their ways - if anything could be said about these fans is that they have been for far too long stuck with the notion that Star Trek has to be made a certain way - a way that in the end killed it. 




the 2009 movie was a fantastic change of pace, it brought the Star Trek myth alive in a way that had never been seen before and like TNG before it, it was the first time Star Trek had actually embraced it's own notion of boldly going where no one has gone before.




The franchise evolved and embraced a third generation of it's legacy on May 8th and as far as I'm concerned, all for the better. A new generation can now enjoy the qualities that made Star Trek so enjoyable for my generation - I'm an 80's kid, I was brought up with TNG - that Star Trek spoke to me, this Star Trek will speak to a whole new generation and that alone is brilliant. All you winers out there have to accept that something like Star Trek can't stay in one place or tell stories one way or to one group of people forever.




Trekkers/Trekkies - who cares, it's just a word used to define a group of people - it means very little other than that.



 [/quote]
1701, I totally agree with what you've written here. It's refreshing to see someone who "grew up" on TNG and that era of Star Trek demonstrate an understanding for why it was necessary to go in the direction that the latest film went.
I can say this much: Obviously this topic has been debated to the point of inducing involuntary vomiting on most of our parts, and I've weighted in REPEATEDLY with my feelings. I think the bottom line (to answer the original question) is:
Star Trek 2009 is "for" anyone who chooses to enjoy it. That's why it did so well in the theaters and with the critics. While not "prefect," it's an overwhelmingly likable film with charm, wit, adventure, and emotion.
The only people it's not "for" are those people who (consciously or subconsciously) WANTED and perhaps NEEDED to hate it. I'm not going to go into the points that you've articulated...but I agree wholeheartedly with every one of them. BUT, prior to and following the opening of this film, you should have seen some of the complaints on this message board from "Star Trek fans." It was, quite frankly, embarassing and DISTRESSING and it has actually permanently scarred my perception of Trek fans.
These people would do the online equivilant of throwing themselves on the ground, kicking and screaming about such details like (I'm not kidding you...you can't make this $#it up):
1. The Kelvin has a "zero" to start it's registry number.
2. The ship corridors shown on the "Under Construction" website (way before the movie was released) were "too dark and not Star Trek-like" 
3. Kirk shouldn't have killed Nero at the end of the movie because that's "not what Gene would have wanted" (oh, somebody f-in shoot me)
4. The design of the Enterprise bridge is an "ergonomic nightmare."
5. YOU CAN'T BUILD A STARSHIP ON THE GROUND!!! ARRRHHHHHGGG!!!
6. The warp drive effect is "too much like Star Wars!!! NOOOOOO!"
7. The commercial said "not your father's Star Trek EEHHHH!! DISRESPECT!!!"
8. (one of my favorites) The characters are all too cool and good looking.
9. (another favorite) Captain Robau walks through stupid plastic flaps like you'd find in a walk-in freezer. NO! WORST TREK MOVEE EVAR!!!!!
Anyway, I think you get the point. And, I honestly think that the movie was INDEED NOT made for these people. I think it was a purposeful and intentionally calculated decision (risk). And, it clearly paid off. It was these types of people that Berman and Braga were trying to cater to in the post TNG era...and the result was stagnation and irrelevance, despite best intentions. This is why it's best when the creators DON'T LISTEN to what the fans want. JJ knew that. Don't give them what they want... Give them what they need, and accept that there will be fallout.
And, people are still struggling with it today. There are people who can't let go. And they won't. They'll continue to fight what they consider to be a "nobel battle" for "what GENE would have wanted" and that kind of rhetorical crap. They're blinded by their own selfishness for what THEY think the franchise shold be, and they lose sight of what the franchise MUST be.

KelisThePoet

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 636

Report this Feb. 22 2011, 12:51 pm

"3. Kirk shouldn't have killed Nero at the end of the movie because that's 'not what Gene would have wanted'"


 


From "Friday's Child" (The Original Series, Season 2):


Kirk -- There's just one thing I want.  Spock -- The Klingon?  Kirk -- One of us must get him.  Spock -- Revenge, Captain?  Kirk -- Why not?


And then, of course, there's the way Kirk dealt with Krug in Star Trek III.


I've heard so many assertions (from fans and detractors alike) that the new Star Trek movie is fundamentally different from other Star Trek, and I just don't see that fundamental difference.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Feb. 22 2011, 3:31 pm

You're right, Kelis. It's only different to those who WANT to believe it's different, and need to rationalize their distaste with reasons like what you stated above.


My personal favorites are the ones who talk about how many holes there are in the plot (which there ARE a number of, admittedly). But, they fail to acknowledge or even recognize that almost every Trek movie (including the universal classics of II, IV, and VI) have GROSS inconsistencies, inaccuracies, contrivances, and outright BS in them.


People go to great lengths to rationalize their thoughts on this subject, but they don't recognize their own hipocracy and double-standards in doing so.

KelisThePoet

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 636

Report this Feb. 22 2011, 6:17 pm

I think some people want to believe the movie is different.  And others get so caught up with the crowd of voices asserting the difference that they watch the movie through the lens of popular opinion about it and see on the screen what they've read on the internet or from some critic or something--which may just be another way of saying that they see what they want to see.


I think that kind of thing happens all the time with everything.  Expressions of popular opinion are powerful and create their own reality for people through sheer will of assertion.  In the Star Trek franchise, there are all kinds of myths, generalizations and jokes, especially about the original series, that are fun to repeat but then often get mistaken and misremembered for what was actually on the show.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Feb. 23 2011, 5:31 am

Kelis,


 


I'd agree with what you are saying to a point, but in this case "popular opinion" is that the movie was outstanding. Box office and critical response was record-breaking within the franchise.


I think it's more the typical Trek Fan Phenomenon that the people who complain have MUCH bigger mouths than the people who are happy.

AtoZ2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1297

Report this Feb. 23 2011, 6:02 am

"Popular opinion" is hardly represented here.  Repeated comments by the same posters from both sides of the fence is a much more accurate standing on the subject.


The only thing that is true is that the film was a major success for Star Trek with both fans who are hardcore, or casual, general public and critics...which upset the handful of nay sayers no end. I find great ammusement in that BTW


It is also my opinion that most of the real nay says are in fact strict TNG fans who have belittled many of the other spin off series in the past also.

KelisThePoet

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 636

Report this Feb. 23 2011, 1:10 pm

Popular opinion, outside the community of Trek fans and posters on these boards, does seem to be that the movie was good, but popular opinion also seems (to me) to be that the movie was not like the rest of Star Trek.  I've had several aquaintances of mine who don't like Star Trek tell me how much they appreciated the new movie for being different and better than the rest of the franchise, and that seems to be the critical consensus, as well.  The one thing detractors and fans of the movie seem to agree on is that it was really different from what came before, and I seem to be one of a few lone voices arguing to the contrary.


Now, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and what seems similar to one person seems different to someone else.  I respect that.  But so many of the people who insist this movie was different (for better or for worse) can't seem to articulate what made it different, or else they bring up a few examples that I judge to be either trivial or demonstrably false.  I talked to a woman I know who doesn't like Star Trek about this topic, and when I kept pointing out to her similarities between this new movie and all the others, she just kept invoking the name "J. J. Abrams."  At one point, she basically agreed with what I'm arguing here about popular perception of the film.  She conceded that there are a lot of similarities between the new movie and other Trek films, but said that casual moviegoers either ignore those similarities or interpret them as part of J. J. Abrams' style, because of their greater familiarity with his other projects than with Star Trek.


Falor was a prosperous merchant who went on a journey to gain greater awareness: Through storms he crossed the Voroth Sea/ To reach the clouded shores of Raal/ Where old T’Para offered truth./ He traveled through the windswept hills/ And crossed the barren Fire Plains/ To find the silent monks of Kir./ Still unfulfilled, he journeyed home/ Told stories of the lessons learned/ And gained true wisdom by the giving. – Falor’s Journey, “Innocence”

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: FleetAdmiral_BamBam

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum