i struggle to understand some peoples opposition almost to this film.
I class these people in the same way I do with Casino Royale with Daniel Craig. They ranted that he was wrong, that he didn't look right, that the film was a reset for the whole Bond mythos etc... Yet it turned out to be the biggest Grossing bond film; and got the most critical approval than any other Bond film. I thought it was awesome, and can't wait for the next Bond with DC.
He was wrong, he doesn't look right, it was a reset, and to each their own. I've seen every one of the Bond movies, and I rate him behind George Lazenby. But that's my own opinion, of an older fan, and you have yours. You're what that new line of movies needs these days.. I'd still rather have seen more movies with Brosnan in them..
I think this film is going to be fantastic. TOS, if viewed in a detached way, is terrible. The acting is bad, the sets are awful, the effects are bad... which is to be expected. In my view, it was the movies with TOS cast that really established them in our culture, not the TV series
*Completely* disagree here.. without the original series going into syndication, we'd not know that much about Star Trek at all. It was the original series in syndication, plus the cast and stories that established the franchise. And effects were better than average for that time period. Ever seen early "Doctor Who"? That's bad effects and awful sets.. and if you want to see bad acting, watch some of the episodes with William Hartnell (the first Doctor) and watch the companions act. Or, I should say,"act". And this is coming from a fan. Shatner was the worst actor of the bunch, mainly because he was so over the top.. and noone had really matched that until Avery Brooks hit the screen..
But it was the original series influence and the fans of that series that gave us a NASA test shuttle named "Enterprise" (before the first Trek movie), and it was that same fan base for that show being so massive that Paramount wanted to try "Phase 2", which spun into the first Trek movie.
I'm willing to give the new movie a chance, but I'll wait until others I trust have seen it first before I spend money on it.
. And those movies give everything a make over.
It seems to me, that people really want the original trio and the 1701. We can't have them, because their dead or too old/outdated. So instead of having another derivative show with Star Trek slapped onto the title, lets go back to the beginning and rebuild what made it so popular in the first place.
Star Trek as of a year or two ago was dead. We all felt that after Enterprise was canceled, we would get nothing for maybe 10/15 years, but here we are, a film with twice the budget of the last one, with a Director and writing cast that are highly respected and lauded for their previous work. While we should just accept this new Trek because it's Trek, we should at least be thankfully that someone is trying to make it great again, and that the show we all love is being given another chance at life.
Hang on a sec...
"While we should just accept this new Trek because it's Trek"... ummmm, no.. that's like saying,"We should consider 'Spock's Brain' a good episode because it had the original Three in it." I view TNG, DS9 and Voyager as being offshoots of Q's influence in the Federation's development as seen in "All Good Things". I view Enterprise as being an influence of Daniels and the Shadow Guy's Temporal Cold War interference. I mean, the Mirror Universe's Terran Empire falling? Please...
I see them all as stand-alone entities, splinter universes that may or may not have happened, (that we caught a glimpse of in "Parallels") and that had no influence on the universe that we saw in the Original Series.
Does that mean that my opinion is right or wrong? Nope.. it's my own opinion and interpretation of what I've seen, and I'm welcome to it, as you have your own.
I honestly think that the die hard fans could play a hand in destroying this film with their canon based tantrums by spoiling it for those who either are not into Trek or who like it, but don't froth at the mouth when Klingons are encountered 15 minutes before it was stated in a different series. So I guess I would say to these guys... Be calm, give it a chance. If you refuse to do that, at least don't spoil it by turning casual viewers away. Some of us want more trek, even if it's not in the form you like. And to get more, we need to bring in people who are not fans. We need their money. 
So even legitimate concerns, based over and off what we've seen in the past, are irrelevant and tantrums? Words like "tantrum" and "froth" are argumentative to say the least here.. long time fans, if they didn't exist, would make all this irrelevant. The thing to remember here.. long time fans have been waiting for a really good Star Trek movie for a long time now. If this new movie is good, fantastic. If it gives the franchise an enema, even better. But if it totally destroys everything that we've ever seen before, then you also can guarantee that those long time fans will use their own networks to make sure that their money walks away from this film. Without the long time fan behind it, the movie will flop.
I, personally, have no problems with seeing the franchise rest for 10-15 years for a restart.. after all, it worked for Doctor Who, and that is a much better show because of it. The problem is, Paramount is treating Trek too much like the camel in the "Staff of Life" joke and we're expected to be the nun.
Topic: OT: The New Enterprise (Read 9657 times)