ELF Radio: I've kind of come to detest JJ Abrahms.
...
Maybe i'm wrong. I don't know. I just wish they'd given control of Star Wars to an older, more ponderous director. Ridley Scott or someone.

Ridley Scott? The man behind Prometheus? You'd rather the guy who promised a crap ton of explanation capping off a series and instead of delivering, gave us one of the worst movies I've had the displeasure of seeing.

I've never seen Lost or Super 8, sounds like a similar promise and lack of delivering, but at least he's got Alias, Fringe, and the ST movie under his belt. Also, don't forget SW isn't about that kind of mystery and intrigue. It's a Space Opera Action series. I'd trust Abrams to SW LONG before Ridley Scott. Are there better directories? Yea, potentially. But anyone I think, there are probably issues with. Maybe Joss Whedon? But only after I get my Dr Horrible 2. I dunno, I can't saw I'm displeased about it being Abrams. Had they announced Michael Bay or M Night Shamalama Dingdog I'd have been pissed.

rickycal78: dogboy360: Mad_Radhu: dogboy360: Confabulat: dogboy360: BTW, ST:TOS nerds had NASA name a shuttle "Enterprise"

Yeah, but that shuttle boldly stayed on Earth.

Well, it did fly (just never left the atmosphere).

There was also that whole Star Wars weapons program thing. Of course that didn't get into space, either.

Ok, I will give you that. But Nobody wanted that. Even now, that was a stupid idea. Yes, there are defence contractors that are trying to make something like that work. But, it was a misnomer from the beginning.

The hell we didn't want it! And of course they called it Star Wars, you didn't expect them to call it "Death Star" did you?

It was a gift to the contractors. A very large money gift. It was a pipe dream even on the 80's.
Naming the thing "Star Wars" was a way of framing a concept that people could pretend that was wanted. A new hope. (bad pun intended)

ELF Radio: I just wish they'd given control of Star Wars to an older, more ponderous director. Ridley Scott or someone.

LOL. I disagree with the rest of what you wrote but to be fair, I'd pay to see that.

mjbok: This is what Spock being logical in the new version is

I absolutely understand your criticisms of Abrams' reboot, but this is a totally inappropriate screenshot to support your point - you're showing precisely the point in the movie where Spock loses control of his emotions, for which he (logically) declares himself unfit to command. While I agree with your points by and large, this 'example' is patently ass-backwards.

Confabulat: Of all the things to complain about, the age of the characters? WTF?

It's a valid complaint, and here's why:
Apart from the absolute ridiculous premise that a universe that is split two decades prior would end up with the same exact bridge crew, the crew all originally went to the academy, graduated, and had other ship assignments first because...they were all different ages. Now a person who is 12 years younger is in the same academy class? Kirk would have been approximately 26 (given four years at Star Fleet Academy) at the time he takes over as captain of the Enterprise. That means that Chekov is 14. In the altverse Chekov is 17 and a prodigy, which is why he is where he is. That means that Chekov's parents and their sperm/egg combination was exactly the same 3 years later in the altverse.

There are so many holes in the idea of who the crew of the Enterprise is in the altverse, but even if you can suspend disbelief to say that the universe did indeed split at time "x", all events prior to time "x" should have been the same. Like people being born certain places, or being born at certain times. Eventually it all comes back to the fact that the premise is profoundly retarded. The further (timewise) you get from a Genesis point of a time-split, the more differences there will be between the original (which did exist since Old Spock was still around) and the new timeline. This is not a mirror universe (lack of goatees), but a deviation of the original timeline. It is, at its core, stupid.

BumpInTheNight: You really need to read that entire thing in Comic Book Guy's voice, is sooo much better.

Here, I'll get you started:
[goodcomics.comicbookresources.com image 289x229]

Thanks. That helped.

Hitomi Tanaka's Paperweights: I absolutely understand your criticisms of Abrams' reboot, but this is a totally inappropriate screenshot to support your point - you're showing precisely the point in the movie where Spock loses control of his emotions, for which he (logically) declares himself unfit to command. While I agree with your points by and large, this 'example' is patently ass-backwards.

Thanks for the first part. In TOS (and TNG plus movies) how many times did Spock lose his shiat? The only time I can remember was on the planet with the flowers and that was a result of the spores influencing him. A better example for the new movie would be him getting Uhura out of her panties, because outside of PonFar (sp?) this wouldn't have happened for any Vulcans in the original universe. While it is logical that she gets his Vulcan dick hard, that's not the way it works in the established universe. Look at Spock's dad's relationship with Spock's mom. Loveless (in the way we understand it) and more of a marriage of understanding than any marriage of passion.

mjbok: This is Spock being logical in TOS:
[www.call-with-current-continuation.org image 391x353]

This is what Spock being logical in the new version is:
[popreflection.files.wordpress.com image 790x444]

You know, even in the movie itself Older Spock (Nimoy) told Kirk to go push Younger Spock's buttons. Because he's a broken man. It also serves as a semi-plausible explanation as to how Kirk got control of the ship again.

The original series had Spock as half-human (lolwut); this version just underscored that. So why the butthurt?

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty to make fun of in the new Trek: The USS Apple Store with its Clearly-A-Warehouse Super Mario Brothers Engine Room and the campy script. Spock losing his cool after being provoked over a larger-than-life personal loss was one of the better touches.

I also liked the "handgun" phasers with their pistol-slide action :P

You're not going to get "Original Trek", by the way. The Original Series cribbed a lot from the Twilight Zone -- Rod Sterling's use of sci-fi to exorcise his demons over being a young trooper in World War II. That kind of morality play has fallen out of style.

Star Wars and Star Trek were great. But they are done. Time for someone to create a new franchise to take their place.

/rebooting has only worked once
//result = one great series + 1,000,000 crappy series/films

Confabulat: Why is Chekov 14? Walter Koenig is the same age as George Takei.

Chekov was born in 2245. Kirk was born in 2233. This is only for the original universe. It's not the relative age of the actors, it's the relative ages of the characters. Just like how in one movie (not Trek) Sally Field played Tom Hanks girlfriend, and a decade later she played his mother.

AliceBToklasLives: Star Wars and Star Trek were great. But they are done. Time for someone to create a new franchise to take their place.

/rebooting has only worked once
//result = one great series + 1,000,000 crappy series/films

LIsten. Franchises are big money. Don't be a cock-blocker.

/I agree with you 100%

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Don't get me wrong, there's plenty to make fun of in the new Trek: The USS Apple Store with its Clearly-A-Warehouse Super Mario Brothers Engine Room and the campy script. Spock losing his cool after being provoked over a larger-than-life personal loss was one of the better touches.

The bigger issue with the engine room scene was being able to transport from huge distances onto a ship traveling at warp speed.

Honestly I'm not the biggest Trek fan (liked TOS some, thought some of TNG was brilliant, and didn't really see much of the others), but like with Doctor Who it bothers me when something has literally decades of established stuff and someone new takes it over and shiats all over it.

I've decided that everything Jar-Jar Abrams turns to shiat.

Lost took a good premise and ended up shiatting all over it.

Alias had good mysteries with stupid resolutions (just like Lost).

Revolution is farking retarded. Don't get me started on Alcatraz. Fringe was pretty stupid too.

Star Trek 2009 was a dumb, forgettable action movie. Face it.

Star Wars 7 is gonna suck ass if prior trends hold. But I'll still pay to see it...

Confabulat: Ugh, well if it means so much to you that you've memorized the birthdays of the crew, then I defer to you. And may God have mercy on your soul.

I looked them up. Kirk, Spock, Bones, and Scotty were always kind of the elder statesmen with Chekov and Sulu being younger which is why them all being at the academy together struck me as odd.

tallguywithglasseson: Didn't care for Abrams' take on Star Trek. Take existing franchise, make some winks to the original material, turn into dumb action movie.

Star Wars IS a dumb action movie, though. So I actually have hope for the next movie because of this.

Mike Chewbacca: tallguywithglasseson: Didn't care for Abrams' take on Star Trek. Take existing franchise, make some winks to the original material, turn into dumb action movie.

Star Wars IS a dumb action movie, though. So I actually have hope for the next movie because of this.

You raise a good point...

elchip: I've decided that everything Jar-Jar Abrams turns to shiat.

Lost took a good premise and ended up shiatting all over it.

Alias had good mysteries with stupid resolutions (just like Lost).

Revolution is farking retarded. Don't get me started on Alcatraz. Fringe was pretty stupid too.

Star Trek 2009 was a dumb, forgettable action movie. Face it.

Star Wars 7 is gonna suck ass if prior trends hold. But I'll still pay to see it...

Actually, regarding the TV shows, everything JJ Abrams touches starts out good and then he ditches it and then it becomes crap.
He had nothing to do with Lost after the first season.
He already abandoned Revolution, I think after the 1st episode.

If he puts in a fifteen-minute scene with the original Star Wars cast pummeling Jar Jar Binks to death with gaderffii sticks, I'll be OK with whatever else he does. Think Joe Pesci at the end of Casino. Kind of like that.

>Trekkie explains why he's butthurt over the Star Wars directing announcement

Because "butthurt" is the reflexive reaction to ANY news about Star Wars.

Farker Soze: Techhell: /Agrees about Abrams' take on Trek - it wasn't a Trek movie. It was a dumb action-comedy that actively encouraged viewers to sit back, turn off their brains and just oogle the pretty action and the wittily forgettable one-liners.

What, like ST IV and VI?

While I agree with you there. Keep in mind those movies had the foundation of a series. This new star trek was a fresh reboot with no foundation since they did that weird dimension altering bs. So it's just dumb space action movie with little ties to what made people like star trek to begin with.
Hint: it wasn't dumb space explosions and one liners

mjbok: Thanks for the first part. In TOS (and TNG plus movies) how many times did Spock lose his shiat? The only time I can remember was on the planet with the flowers and that was a result of the spores influencing him. A better example for the new movie would be him getting Uhura out of her panties, because outside of PonFar (sp?) this wouldn't have happened for any Vulcans in the original universe. While it is logical that she gets his Vulcan dick hard, that's not the way it works in the established universe. Look at Spock's dad's relationship with Spock's mom. Loveless (in the way we understand it) and more of a marriage of understanding than any marriage of passion.

Absolutely, as I said before I definitely agree with most of your points. I think, ultimately, I'm just more forgiving of a 'reboot' than many other people, but I think I can almost-kinda-sorta understand some of the logic behind it.

My feeling has been that many reboots are motivated by the need to recalibrate of lot of emotional, political, or other content, for a new, younger, and differently-wired audience. You even hint at this with the words "Loveless (in the way we understand it)". Lovelessness could have a very different meaning to those who grew up in post-Leave it to Beaver era than those who grew up in the plastic 80s to those growing up today, and this is probably true of any cultural, emotional, psychological 'element' of a story, character, or world. As an example, the first film that popped into my mind for the word "lovelessness" was Ordinary People, whereas I would assume a younger person's first association would be something quite different. Perhaps if we explored it, that younger person and I would discover we have very different definitions of lovelessness, precisely because the nature and social mores of love are so different for each one of us. The times they are a-changin' and all that...

I think reboots become necessary when the emotional contexts of the audience have changed enough over time that the implications, undercurrents, and feel of a movie/world are no longer quite in line with their original intentions. For what it's worth, I think Abrams actually did that rather admirably with Star Trek... but I would have to admit that's because I also feel, as all old farts do, that the next generations of audience are necessarily more small-minded and emotionally stunted even than my own. (Which, of course, is always wrong and never fair. But ain't that the fun of being an old fart?)

In other words, the old Spock, if he were to preserved absolutely true to his 'original' form, would simply not mean the same to today's audience, because their very understanding of logic, emotionless, and all the mind/heart dichotomy and debate that Spock's character represented to the older generation is not and cannot be interpreted in the same way by people who grew up in a vastly different world, with vastly different social rules of interaction and exposure.

Or perhaps you'd agree with me on this: the old Spock, it was all the years of the character's 'coldness' and logic that made the great phrase, "I have been, and will always be, your friend" so powerful. Coming from a character who never expressed things in this way, these were immensely powerful words (to me, the definition of the early series in a lot of ways). The new Spock... those words would not be so unusual, so telling, simply because they are not quite so against the grain of the character's already-established behavior.
/yes I've been drinking, I don't write this much about Star Trek otherwise

It's more like he went to the prom with two dates while you stood awkwardly in the corner and acted all angst-y and mad that you got friend-zoned by both of them.

Craps the Gorilla: This new star trek was a fresh reboot with no foundation since they did that weird dimension altering bs.

Personally, I think that was a stroke of genius--and pretty much the only one in the new movie. In that respect Abrams didn't "ruin" Star Trek because the original timeline remains untouched. In fact, it's MUCH better than Kirk's crappy death in Generations.

But I agree with you on the rest.

mjbok: This is not a mirror universe (lack of goatees), but a deviation of the original timeline. It is, at its core, stupid.

Not sure if trolling (goatees), but the argument (while stupid) could be legit...

I still think they should have hired Woody Allen to do Star Wars.

Hitomi Tanaka's Paperweights: In other words, the old Spock, if he were to preserved absolutely true to his 'original' form, would simply not mean the same to today's audience, because their very understanding of logic, emotionless, and all the mind/heart dichotomy and debate that Spock's character represented to the older generation is not and cannot be interpreted in the same way by people who grew up in a vastly different world, with vastly different social rules of interaction and exposure.

I know this is kind of middle ground between the original Spock and the new Spock, but Data was really Spock 2.0. Rather than having lack of emotion be a race character trait it was due to him being an android, but it was the same vein, with a different background. By making the new Spock be "updated" it makes him less a Vulcan and more like someone with Aspergers, or someone like Sheldon on BBT.
I honestly think that the movie could have been called Star Trek and had the exact same plot (with one minor exception) and it wouldn't have bothered me. There's no reason for it to be Kirk, Spock, Scotty, etc. Especially when changing character traits there was no reason (other than name recognition) to not have had it be different characters in the same universe. You can't say it wouldn't work, as TNG and DS9 both were successful and are still talked about and outside of an unrecognizable McCoy in Encounter at Farpoint there were no TOS characters until season 4 or 5. It was lazy IMHO.

//Star Trek is one of very few (movie) series that I have seen all of them in the theater (Star Wars, Star Trek, Die Hard, Indiana Jones are the only ones).

I'd love to see Ron Howard directs a Star Wars. He has experience with big FX but I think his strength lies with the character development and getting a good performance from his cast

Brainsick: Not sure if trolling (goatees)

Tried to find a troll picture with a goatee, but couldn't. That was supposed to be a joke (though it is the obvious visual tell they've used.)

Star Trek has always tried to be science fiction narrowly defined, with nothing magic or supernatural, at least until DS9. Star Wars has always been fantasy set in space. I doubt that one man directing both franchises can please their fanboys, but may be able to entertain the general public, which is the whole point of the entertainment industry.

GreenAdder: Think of it like this:

A guy comes over to your house and breaks your TV. Twice. And suddenly you get a letter in the mail. It's from the guy, telling you he's tired of breaking your TV. He'd rather go over to a different house, because he found out they have a much more expensive TV to break.

Would you miss the guy? Would you feel slighted at his absence? Would you feel betrayed that suddenly you might have a different guest who treats your TV with care and respect?

You're not helping my cabin fever. Comments like this usually remind me to shut off the computer and go do something outside.

/f*king January

mjbok: I know this is kind of middle ground between the original Spock and the new Spock, but Data was really Spock 2.0. Rather than having lack of emotion be a race character trait it was due to him being an android, but it was the same vein, with a different background. By making the new Spock be "updated" it makes him less a Vulcan and more like someone with Aspergers, or someone like Sheldon on BBT.

Before we continue, I just want to quickly say your knowledge of Star Trek really shows through and it's been a pleasure discussing the series with someone who cares about it so much - love it or hate it, I always thought ST was great for conversation-fodder, and it's been cool hearing your thoughts on it.

As for Data... I always regret I didn't like TNG better and get to know those characters. When it first came out, damned if I didn't recognize Brent Spiner from his part-time character in Night Court, and that really threw me off. Also, I often felt they fell down the Tin Man trap ("if I only had a heart") too easily with Data, though I understand over time he did become a deeper and more interesting character.

(Brent Spiner on Night Court: http://youtu.be/aCUsTGtpojA - the quote at 1:37 still makes me laugh to this day)

Kazan: mjbok: ...

This is Spock being logical in TOS:
[www.call-with-current-continuation.org image 391x353]

This is what Spock being logical in the new version is:
[popreflection.files.wordpress.com image 790x444]

Abram's splinter universe is not the same as the original. things are different. Spock is a bit less in control of himself in this one, and given the circumstances it is even more likely that this was just a temporary lapse of control.

It's not a splinter universe. He may call it that, but under the long-established rules in the way Trek handles time travel, it isn't.

Star Trek has had several time-travel stories in which characters traveled into the past, and they traveled to the past of the main Trek timeline and drastically altered the present. They did not spin off an alternate timeline!

Parallel timelines do exist in Trek (Mirror Universe, "Parallels" TNG episode, etc.), but not as the result of time travel.

What Abrams did was destroy the entire Star Trek universe and replace it with his new version. This is the first time that the alteration of the "past" was not undone and the changes reset (a la "City on the Edge of Forever," "Yesterday's Enterprise," etc.).

Kirk, Spock, etc. only exist in the Abrams universe because they had already been conceived before the alteration, so the circumstances leading to said conception remained unaltered. But everything past that, starting with the birth of Kirk, was altered at least slightly, and drastically indeed once Vulcan was destroyed.

Nothing past that point can happen the way it did. Anyone with any connection to the Federation who was conceived after the destruction of Vulcan would be unlikely to ever exist, as the odds of the circumstances leading to the exact same sperm meeting the exact same ovum still happening unchanged would be miniscule indeed, and getting exponentially smaller as time passes from that point.

So, Picard, Riker, Data, Wesley (hi, Wheaton!), LaForge, O'Brien, etc. never existed (actually, for similar reasons, Wesley shouldn't've existed in "Yesterday's Enterprise," either, but I digress). Lwaxanna Troi might have, but not Denna's father and thus Denna herself. Worf might've been conceived (unlikely given the Klingon Empire's relationship with the Federation), but would not have been raised by humans and would never join Starfleet. Of course Guinan existed, but never met Picard and so never had reason to be a bartender on a Starfleet starship.

None of the main human (including part-human) characters of Deep Space Nine would exist either. Ditto Voyager. The characters native to the Delta Quadrant, yes.

All Trek series except (gag!) Enterprise are undone. The TOS characters exist, but as Old Spock himself said, their destinies are irrevocably altered. The same things will not happen to them as happened in TOS.

Even most of the novels are undone ― even novel series such as Peter David's New Frontier books that are tangential to the Trekverse and Federation are undone. Warlord M'k'n'zy of Calhoun would exist, but would never have become Captain Mackenzie Calhoun. Ditto Zak Kebron, Burgoyne 192, Ensign Janos, Si Cwan, Moke, etc.. The more Federation-connected characters (Elizabeth Shelby, Robin Leffler, Selar, Mark McHenry, Soleta, etc.) would never exist (even though those last two were novel-only characters, they were both conceived in the Federation long after when the destruction of Vulcan would happen in the Abrams-altered timestream).

Trek fans realize this. Sales of Trek novels dropped so drastically following the Abrams movie that the novel franchise itself is in danger. Why bother to read stories that "never happened" even in the fictional universe?

There's a lot of arguing over something that just isn't that important. I'm a TOS Trekkie, but enjoyed all the spin-offs as well. When I got wind of Abram's reboot, I wanted to see it out of curiosity, but knew before going into it that it would never actually be "Star Trek." So I never really considered it as part of the Star Trek universe. It's easy enough to ignore it, so who cares?

No amount of lens flare could possibly make a new Star Wars sequel worse that episodes 1-3.