[I-Am-Zim]

Originally Posted by kevin

You presume it's being 'dismissed'.

Would it shock you to know I (for one) have actually watched more TOS since the new film was around than I had for years before, not less and I still have the capacity to be open to both?

Yes, actually, it does suprise me. My problem is with the fact that those who wholeheartedly accept the Abramsverse have a tendency to talk down to those of us who prefer the original. We get called names, ridiculed, made fun of, and generally demeaned in every way. Simply because we would have prefered an origin story about the characters we have been fans of for decades instead of a brand new set of alternate universe versions that we know little about. It seems to me that the gushers (oops, called you a name. Sorry), for some reason, think they are better than, or above those of us who don't care for the Abramsverse and prefer the "real" TOS. I don't appreciate it. But that's not going to stop me from voicing my opinion.

[TheTrekkie]

Originally Posted by Beetlescott

I wonder if anyone has considered that the reason the TNG movies felt like "episode" of the show was not because the movie was bad, but because the show was so good? I mean we watched it for 7 years, it got better every year. I'll never forget All Good Things. The special fx were as good as the first 6 movies. Think about it.

I think TNG just worked better on TV.
TNG always lacked in action and had many dialogues.

The problem why TNG never was really successfull in the cinemas:
For Non-Trekkies the TNG crew wasn't "cool" and edged enough.
For the TNG-Trekkies the TNG movies were not intellectual, not TNG enough.
It always stayed a mere compromise.

Though All Good Things as a movie would have been my Trekkie-Fantasy.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim

Yes, actually, it does suprise me. My problem is with the fact that those who wholeheartedly accept the Abramsverse have a tendency to talk down to those of us who prefer the original. We get called names, ridiculed, made fun of, and generally demeaned in every way. Simply because we would have prefered an origin story about the characters we have been fans of for decades instead of a brand new set of alternate universe versions that we know little about. It seems to me that the gushers (oops, called you a name. Sorry), for some reason, think they are better than, or above those of us who don't care for the Abramsverse and prefer the "real" TOS. I don't appreciate it. But that's not going to stop me from voicing my opinion.

Indeed, this kind of categorizing is not just impolite but also unproductive and lazy. We like or dislike all the variations of Trek for very different reasons.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim

Yes, actually, it does suprise me.

Life is full of surprises.

These apparent contradictions (to you) of perspective can be something to ponder over in the future.

My problem is with the fact that those who wholeheartedly accept the Abramsverse have a tendency to talk down to those of us who prefer the original. We get called names, ridiculed, made fun of, and generally demeaned in every way. Simply because we would have prefered an origin story about the characters we have been fans of for decades instead of a brand new set of alternate universe versions that we know little about. It seems to me that the gushers (oops, called you a name. Sorry), for some reason, think they are better than, or above those of us who don't care for the Abramsverse and prefer the "real" TOS. I don't appreciate it. But that's not going to stop me from voicing my opinion.

I think if you're going to devise a name to call, I would come up with something better than 'gusher'.

It's not very original.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by TheTrekkie

I think TNG just worked better on TV.
TNG always lacked in action and had many dialogues.

The problem TNG never was really successfull in the cinemas:
For Non-Trekkies the TNG crew wasn't "cool" and edged enough.
For the TNG-Trekkies the TNG movies were not intellectual, not TNG enough.
It always stayed a mere compromise.

Though All Good Things as a movie would have been my Trekkie-Fantasy.

I don't think that TNG had less action than any other Trek series on average. TOS might have had more fistfights, but that's about it. I neither think that it is extraordinarily intellectual, the writing was not better than in TOS.
Let's also not forget that TNG became popular due to episodes like "Best of Both Worlds" or "Yesterday's Enterprise".

I don't think that the original characters were "cool" when they hit the big screen, but TMP and TWOK implied that quite some time has passed and that they all have went different ways (Spock and McCoy in TMP, Kirk and Chekov in TWOK) and reunite for a new adventure. Hence the aura of living classics in the subsequent movies which we all cherish so much.

[kevin]

With the improved effects available etc plus physical stunts I actually felt that TNG had from the start a very solid action quotient.

Both in space and everywhere else.

I think that working with such a larger cast just stymied the writers for a while until they got a grip on them, like has been mooted.

[starwarsrcks]

Trek is back and bigger and more modern for the 21st century but can we please stop arguing down people's throats that Prime Trek is far far better than NuTrek that would be appreciated.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by Beetlescott

I wonder if anyone has considered that the reason the TNG movies felt like "episode" of the show was not because the movie was bad, but because the show was so good? I mean we watched it for 7 years, it got better every year. I'll never forget All Good Things. The special fx were as good as the first 6 movies. Think about it.

Precisely why I was disappointed with the TNG movies.

There was no major leap. No big screen feel.

And the stories were written by small screen writers still thinking in small screen terms. Ergo, small screen effect that doesn't quite fit.

Also why I was disappointed with Serenity. Same thing. Despite it being a good story, there just wasn't any major leap that made me say "WOW, that was a big screen experience."

It's not a bad thing that TV FX are damn near comparable to big screen FX, but it is disappointing when you go into the big screen expecting a WOW factor, and getting an episode instead.


Let's put it like this:

ST:TNG (and subsequent shows), Firefly, and the new Battlestar Galactica are too big for the small screen. (Good thing.) However, as evidenced by Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, and Serenity....not quite big enough for the big screen.

[Samuel]

Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim

Yes, actually, it does suprise me. My problem is with the fact that those who wholeheartedly accept the Abramsverse have a tendency to talk down to those of us who prefer the original. We get called names, ridiculed, made fun of, and generally demeaned in every way. Simply because we would have prefered an origin story about the characters we have been fans of for decades instead of a brand new set of alternate universe versions that we know little about. It seems to me that the gushers (oops, called you a name. Sorry), for some reason, think they are better than, or above those of us who don't care for the Abramsverse and prefer the "real" TOS. I don't appreciate it. But that's not going to stop me from voicing my opinion.

Would you have preferred a previously suggested feminine-like term "girly-man"?

Ok ok seriously tho... I think you made one the most important points. As you said, you know little about this new story. Therefore you dont know whats coming and that is a good thing. At this point after so many shows and movies a post TOS origin story would simply be going through the motions. Meaning the sequel and beyond.

Lets say this origin story was exactly that, TOS based. It has to end with the crew together, certainly if this is only going to be a 3 or 4 movie series. That can be totally open but where do you start? Academy and fast forward? Kirk as first officer somewhere? Post-Pike pilot? I assume the last has to be a given because thats when Kirk took command and the gang is all together.

The second movie must therefore be an adventure in the 5 year mission. But we have already seen that. The trilogy (or more) will have to stick within its pre-existing history. We already know previous Trek has often experienced that problem.

Really its a 'no-win'. Do a TOS 5-year story in 2011-12 and worry about people complaining about canon and continuity errors. Or use a Trek-established time-travel method and deal with people complaining about that. Both can be new stories but only one give a free hand. "New blood" as it were usually prefers the latter.

Any 'origin' movie, new TOS or whatever, and people argue about it till the cows come home, as the old saying goes. But the next movie would be a very different matter if it stuck to TOS. People are already wanting Khan. Lets say the same people wanted Khan but in a TOS movie series. To make it fresh the writers want to change events. They dont want Khan ending up living and on a planet for example. No no no cant have that.

Any TOS based origin movie could have been wonderful. But the sequels would have been hamstrung and a mess for those that dont want TOS changed.

[Dominus of Megadeus]

Originally Posted by horatio

Indeed, this kind of categorizing is not just impolite but also unproductive and lazy. We like or dislike all the variations of Trek for very different reasons.