[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by Zardoz

I will lay you odds most of this was done because some focus group liked it.

That's my point.

"let's get rid of all the familiar things in Trek and replace them with what sells" That is the gist of it. It's very sad.

If NuTrek had maintained more aspects of past Trek, then I would be fine with this alternate universe BS excuse to tell new stories with characters long "dead"

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

If the next Trek flick has no substance (like this one!) then I will not only mourn the death of Trek, but I will bitterly despise these new Trek creations as the walking dead.

I respect what you're saying, but this film saved Trek from becoming a Sci-Fi memory. Was it the best film ever made? No. But TMP was a lame film, and it made huge bucks and lead to an excellent sequel.

Maybe the sequel to this will have a substatial story.

Originally Posted by kevin

Which was a large part of TOS as well - so there are plenty of elements which they got right.

I agree.

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by kevin

Everyone does indeed have different reasons for liking Star Trek - and I don't recall anyone saying they stopped liking Prime Trek just because they also happen to like Abrams Trek as well.

There really should be room enough for it all, whatever one particularly wants from it. Goodness knows Prime Universe Trek produced enough crap on it's own over the years anyway.

I agree people can like both. But to say they fit together under the same mantle of "Trek" is a bit too much for me. If this flick was titled something other than "Trek", I would not be as harsh in my judgment of it

[kevin]

As has been noted in other threads - the more substantive aspects of Trek are something they have an awareness they have to deliver. But they acknowledge this was concerned more with setting the stage.

Can they do that? Maybe, maybe not - only time will tell.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

If the next Trek flick has no substance (like this one!) then I will not only mourn the death of Trek, but I will bitterly despise these new Trek creations as the walking dead.

I might be wrong, but I have the strong impression that the writers and producers of ST09 are much into pop, not genuine sci-fi. I also believe that pretty much all of these people will produce the next Trek movie.
Furthermore the studio also wanted to make Trek cool, so I seriously doubt that they will change their mind after the success of ST09.

I have certain doubts about the long-run effects of FluffyTrek though, TOS and TNG inspired people. I wonder what impact pew-pew-Trek has upon kids who grow up with it ...

[kevin]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

I agree people can like both. But to say they fit together under the same mantle of "Trek" is a bit too much for me. If this flick was titled something other than "Trek", I would not be as harsh in my judgment of it

I can tell that, but as far as my experience and perspective goes, this is not totally unlike Trek of TOS.

If something such as the 'mantle' aspect offends you then, of course that is your right to feel that way, but some design changes aside (which, I have to confess are lower priorities for me than the characters anyway) there is still a lot in there from TOS.

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

That's my point.

"let's get rid of all the familiar things in Trek and replace them with what sells" That is the gist of it. It's very sad.

If NuTrek had maintained more aspects of past Trek, then I would be fine with this alternate universe BS excuse to tell new stories with characters long "dead"

I assume Paramount made it clear to JJ and the writers this film had better make money, or else.

As I've said a 1,000 times on here, Studios are about making money, not making fans happy.

[jtrek79]

i disagree with everything u said

trek 11 has more substance more power more action more everything that all the 10 movies all together

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by Zardoz

I respect what you're saying, but this film saved Trek from becoming a Sci-Fi memory. Was it the best film ever made? No. But TMP was a lame film, and it made huge bucks and lead to an excellent sequel.

Thank you, but I believe I am having a difficult time expressing exactly what I am trying to communicate.

Let me put it this way... are you a Beatles fan? (I think you are). What would you say if a band bought the rights to the name "Beatles" and renamed themselves after the original band, then released an "all new" Beatles album "inspired" by the original?

Originally Posted by Zardoz

Maybe the sequel to this will have a substatial story.

I have the same hope for the next film. Why is it always "the next" film?

[I-Am-Zim]

I agree completely with what you're saying. I think the biggest thing that bothered me was that in the beginning, the movie was hyped as an "origin story" that was supposed to chronicle the early days of Kirk, Spock, and the rest. And in a sense, that's what we got. Just not in the way it should have been. It didn't show the origins of the original crew. It showed how the alternate universe versions of our heroes met. Even after watching the movie, we still have no clue (as far as on-screen canon is concerned) how the original prime versions of the crew ended up on the Enterprise together. That was the story I wanted to see.

It seriously bothers me that they threw away 43 years of Star Trek history just so they could dumb it down for a general audience of non-Trek fans. It was not necessary to totally redesign the whole Trek universe. The original designs could have been tweaked and updated enough to make them look modern without scrapping the original in favor of what we got. In the place of the ultra cool, colorful, inviting, efficiently designed original bridge we got the iBridge which looks like a cross between an Apple store and the jewelry department at Belk. In the place of the clean, neat, and efficient TOS engineering section we got the boiler room from the Titanic. In place of the original Matt Jeffries designed Enterprise we got the Church designed Abramsprise, or "Fuglyprise" as I like to call it which looks like a disproportioned kitbash of the TMP saucer and alien-ship-of-the-week body. Those nacelles are absolutely hideous. And WTF is up with the Abramsprise being almost twice as big as a Galaxy class ship? That is pure stupidity. Did the writers and designers do any research at all? Did they actually watch TOS at all? After watching this movie, I wonder if the so-called "trekkie" writers even knew anything at all about Star Trek. They certainly don't know much about dedicated TOS fans.

When I watched STXI, I enjoyed it as a generic time travel/action/adventure/sci-fi summer blockbuster popcorn flick. But I found myself missing Star Trek while I was watching it. Sure they got the names right, but that's about it. They missed the whole essence of Star Trek in my opinion.