milojthatch wrote:Look, it's like this, as a person who was fully invested in THE Star Trek universe, I feel let down. I wanted more Next Gen, or a DS9 movie or even a Voyager or Enterprise film. These characters have been with me my whole life and are a big part of my childhood and teen years.
Good for you. I've been a Trekker since 1992 so I know the feeling. But even so, all we are, and all we'll ever be are fans. Unless you've got some contacts in Hollywood or happen to be related to a Roddenberry (or now I guess an Abrams), there's not much else you can do.
milojthatch wrote:I stuck around the franchise when many others jumped ship and this is the thanks I get?
Thanks? You expect filmmakers to thank you for watching their tv shows and movies, buying their products, and talking about them online? Sure, fans make up the core viewing audience, but the filmmakers don't (and shouldn't) pander to the fans wishes. When they try to, it becomes a mess (case in point: "Attack of the Cybermen" from Doctor Who. It's rife with nods to the past but is a train wreck of a story).
I don't expect fans to sit and take it, though. They have their right to complain or criticise, but no matter how many rants they throw on the internet, in the end it's just empty words to a filmmaker who has to deliver to everyone, not just fans.
milojthatch wrote:And I know I'm not alone in that feeling. I have a whole group on Facebook of people who feel the same way.
JJ Abrams and company must feel so threatened now.
milojthatch wrote:I also wish that they had at least made darn sure that it had nothing to do with the REAL Star Trek universe. They should have made it a clear re-boot since that is what Hollywood seems to like these days. Do they however? No. Instead they blow up THE REAL Romulus and take out THE REAL Spock. I have a hard time believing that after all those adventures, where the first thing he would do was try to find a way back to his time or reality, in this film Spock kind of just sits on his hands and seems ok with not being in his real time or reality.
Spock is old. He's lived a good life. He's lost a lot of people close to him. And now he has the opportunity to not only revisit them, but re-establish his people. If he returned to the future, it still would be the alternate universe's future and not the prime universe's.
milojthatch wrote:I fully understand that in the movie world, ideas are copied from other movies, but this one is so blatant we really need to start calling it "Star Wars" instead. Here we have a man who was given the keys to the Enterprise so to speak who many times has full on stated that he never got "Star Trek" and is a bigger "Star Wars" fan. Then, surprise surprise, the movie he makes turns out to be more of a "Star Wars" tribute then anything resembling the beloved "Star Trek" franchise. It is rather blatant that Mr. Abrams felt that to make "Star Trek" "work" it need to be more like "Star Wars." The word "work" in these terms meaning bring in a far larger fan base then it has ever really had before. The problem with that logic is that for many, many people, it already "worked." That is why we had five shows and ten movies! Basically, MR. Abrams sold Trek out to the Devil to make it more "popular."
I'm not going to bother. Rants are best left alone.
ETA:
While I won't bother, I'll quote one of the comments from the IGN article you posted:
- This is very frustrating. Star Trek didn't steal "Star Wars Elements". Both stories run off the idea of a 'monomyth', a term introduced by author Joseph Campbell in his book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces". It's a book exploring comparative mythology from all over the world. In every single myth lies the canon of a 'monomyth' which is defined by Campbell as follows.
"A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man"
George Lucas has stated on film, in writing, and on other various occasions that Campbell was a huge driving force for his story telling mechanic (Check out the original Trilogy DVD Commentary). The idea of the commoner becoming something great, having the mentor, facing a conflict and the love triangle, and every other thing we see in films today is coming from an established formula.
So don't rip on Abrams and Star Trek for 'stealing' Star Wars' formula. Both directors are just intelligent enough to use the story line that has worked literally throughout the past 2 millenniums. Wikipedia the book, google it, read it even. Every single element from both these moves are in that book. They are both excellent films for a reason.
-Posted by: Chesty_Puller on May 13, 2009 20:01 PDT
milojthatch wrote:As a REAL Star Trek fan
Oh god, don't give me that pretentious bullsh!t.
A fan is a fan is a fan, and the whole concept of "new fan" or "true fan" or "real fan" is all in the eye of the beholder, and IMO, anyone who calls him/herself a "true/real" fan of something is doing so out of snobbery towards other fans who don't happen to share their opinions, or new fans who who has just discovered whatever it is they're a fan of.
"A true fan of James Bond would agree that Sean Connery was the best and Timothy Dalton was crap!"
"A true fan of Star Trek would disregard anything that had no input from Gene Roddenberry!"
"A true fan of silverware would never ever use chopsticks!"
"A true fan of life will find a way to live forever!"
It's elitist and ridiculous.
Anyone can be a fan of what "Star Trek" was, but that does not make them a REAL fan, as there never was, never is, and never will be on.
The problem with franchise fans is that they feel they're entitled to what they want without regarding what the filmmakers and the studios want. Sure, it sucks sometimes, but if you don't like it, then you don't like it. It does not give you the right to say that you or anyone who agrees with you is a "real" fan compared to someone who has equally invested their childhood/teen years/etc. into the franchise but does like what the filmmakers have done.
milojthatch wrote:This is NOT Star Trek and frankly never will be...
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
netty wrote:However, I do notice that people consider to be a success for modern Trek is almost the exact opposite of the original vision of the original series.
netty wrote:The success of the Borg alone is totally at odds with Roddenberry's concept of what Star Fleet was supposed to be. While given the command structure of Star Fleet I don't accept it was supposed to be absolutely non-military, it was supposed to be just as much about diplomacy and ethics as about warring and fighting. Yet, that's all the Borg are good for. And the most popular story (The Best of Both Worlds) is nothing but space zapping, brave commando raids etc. And of course, that trend continued with other Borg stories, the DS9 arc and more.
It was necessary, IMO. If all "Star Trek" ever did was diplomacy and discussion, it would not hold an audience (beyond its most ardent fans). Sure, it gets space-opera a bit, but when the story deals with cybernetic beings who plan to destroy a way of life in order to expand their own, diplomacy be damned.
netty wrote:And ironically, the season of ST: TNG which was more or less Roddenberry's vision of the show and the future (it's first) is often seen by many as a failure. [shrugs]
I think it had more to do with the fact that it was the first season. First seasons usually have to take time to find their footing, and while it's not the weakest in TNG's 7-season run (that honor belongs to Season 2), it has signs of not really fitting together yet.
Had Roddenberry continued on in the other seasons with the amount of creative control he had in the first season, later seasons might have been radically different from what they were (if the show lasted that long), and we honestly will never know if it would have been for better or for worse.
netty wrote:So is this new Star Trek movie anti-Trek? I would say no, because while it may be radically different from 60's Trek, its not radically different from our more modern Treks.
netty wrote:And anything from the 60's which survives today is radically different from what it was before by necessity- be it Star Trek, Doctor Who or various film remakes/re-imaginings. Of course, sometimes these new directions fail, but making them the same as the past would fail too. Even timeless classics like Shakespeare are adjusted and slightly re-staged to be contemporary - see David Tennant's award winning Hamlet which keeps the text but has a totally contemporary performance and feel.
again
It's even pink elephant worthy:
albert
