Just going to reply to the title here:
The New (ie) JJ Trek was dead before it got started. It's not Trek, it's just a standard old action, lens-flare filled movie. From what I've seen of the second one, it's even worse, as relates to Trek. And after all the arracks that I've had from JJ fanboi's on these forums, and in game, and seen on other TOS/TNG people as well, I have no tolerance anymore for the opinions of those who like JJ Trek. It's a crapfest that should have been aborted before it began.
/end of rant
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
I disagree with the notion that art needs to be updated to remain relevant. Hollywood is going through a really bad period where it puts out too many 're-imaginings' and 're-boots'. To be honest, they both add up to the same thing: a writer taking another writer's concept, and working they own twist to it. I don't so much have a beef with that, as the false-logic used to justify it...
"it's revitalised the franchise..."
"it's bought new fans to the franchise..."
Once the next Trek movie is made, the franchise will go back to it's pre-STO existence of living in the hearts and minds of Trek fans and some questionably written continuation novels. It is not going to spawn new TV shows or otherwise 'keep the franchise alive', it was just the latest target that Hollywood thought it could get some money out of. It is, to quote Colonel Paul Foster: "Pretty pictures for the masses" (anyone who actually knows that quote without Googling it, kudos to you... )
I loved TNG, I will go to my grave convinced that Picard is truly Wesley's father, but I find the idea of new stories of Picard and his pensionable crew running around saving the universe frankly laughable, and his new relationship with Doctor Crusher nothing more than fan-service and little more than published fan-fiction. To get back on topic, Trek was fine how it was. SO WHAT if it was dead and not putting out new material?? IT DOES NOT NEED TO!! There's already more than enough of a body of work for it to stand on its own merits and be appreciated for what it is, and which people can still engage with just by putting on Sky...
1) Always welcome, but
2) Did it truly need them?
I would suggest Point 2 for countering through that 'justification'.
To address the notion that art MUST go through transitions to remain relevant...
The Mona Lisa does not need to be re-worked to be appreciated... Jason Brooks does not need to do a new version using Angelina Jolie or Megan 'Dead to Hollywood' Fox as the model just so a modern audience will appreciate it...
1984 is as relevant today, as the day it was published. The technology described is not dated, infact, it is still rather contemporary (huge TV screens and vocally-directable dictation machines)
Metropolis is as compelling as it ever was. Sure, it could be remade using contemporary actors and effects and the original script and I would be mind-blowing, but even in it's original format, it is relatable and engaging to an audience.
La Dolce Vita could be updated to a modern setting, but what would that actually do, other than needlessly re-make something which is perfectly okay as it is...
I really wish I'd got into watching Defiance, as from ads, that seems, well, not necessarily 'new', as the themes're straight out of any Western, but it's certainly not derivative, a re-imagining, or a 'relying on a twist' drivel like JJ's body of work...
I have no issue with JJTrek for 'what it is', but don't try and piss in my pocket and tell me it's raining, by saying it 'needs updating' to 'remain relevant...
Last edited by marcusdkane; 07-21-2013 at 10:28 AM.
hmmm....After reading the excessively self indulgent and far too self important public pontifications, with which this thread is liberally littered, by persons with entirely too much free time and not enough gainful, ahem, enterprise(no pun intended) to fill it, I am reminded of something Bill Shatner once said to an entire audience full of Trekkies.
*Drumroll* ...wait for it!... "Get a Life! Please!" *Ching!*
In case you missed it, over the sound of how wonderful you are thundering through your very own internal private conversation, which, unfortunately you elected to burden the rest of us with:
- Why yes, I am mocking you.
At fifty one years old, I have little patience for and even less tolerance of those who feel the need to publicly channel The Prophet Roddenberry (Honored be His Name! In His service we grind gratefully!) and tell the rest of us about "What Gene really wanted." Unless you have access to a time machine or you have Gene's head in some sort of mad scientists' laboratory, you're not speaking about any version of Star Trek other than the one you think is best. Your opinion is duly noted, promptly forgotten and irrelevant.
Who are you to tell the rest of us what is wrong with Star Trek? Don't recall seeing you in any scene, in the credits of any film or episode, or listed anywhere else as an officially licensed source of canon material for Star Trek. This isn't really even about Star Trek. You're obviously mad about something in Star Trek Online which has happened recently to you and you're having difficulties processing it.
If you hate the game this bad, then stop playing it. And before you leave all aflutter, can I have your stuff?
Just throwing out there that Gene Roddenberry wrote lyrics to the Star Trek theme with no intention of using them, just to get a cut of the royalties whenever the theme played on tv. So he was not the bright eyed visionary everyone seems to concoct him as. He was a person, pioneer or not, and people are greedy.