J.J. Abrams' new Star Trek has sparked a huge controversy in the Trekkie universe, a controversy that in the real world amounts to a drunken debate in a dive border town bar over which Darren on Bewitched was more "boneable." My sneak preview review sparked a wave of supportive and angry comments that I have never seen in my history with TV Squad, which amounts to six months depending on which of my accountants you talk to. My former accountant can be reached at the Tennessee Colony State Prison, Tennessee Colony, Texas.
It seems the angrier of the Treksters are getting their head gear in a bunch because Abrams chose to work Leonard Nimoy into the picture via a time travel plot that completely alters the original history and lore of the original series. As one commentor put it, "instead of obliterating a few minutes of exposition about 20 years we didn't watch, this has obliterated [forty three plus] years of storytelling that we did watch."
If I may respectfully offer a differing view that you may not have heard or even thought of before, IT'S A @#*$ING MOVIE! J.J. Abrams made a fun series that had become boring and dull and completely barren of any original concepts or entertainment fun again. He didn't rewrite the Old Testament or add another chapter to the Koran or completely dispute the entire theory of creation of human life by letting Spock travel back in time.
For God's sake, get out of that darkened apartment, put on your pointy Spock ears, go down to the local cineplex or multiplex or googleplex and watch the thing. If you can't even bring yourself to do that when you get to the theater, buy a ticket to Next Day Air and soften the blow of the bomb that is about to be dropped on poor Donald Faison when the Sunday box office figures roll around. At least you'll be angry outside for a change.
If that doesn't convince you, maybe a harsh intervention from one of your own will force you to face (heh) reality.
Mike Henry and Daryl Hall on a Cleveland Show Thanksgiving
The TV Squad Podcast: The Prisoner, '80s TV, soap news and more
Let's talk about spoilers ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
5-09-2009 @ 5:19PM
Jen said...
Well this life long Trek Fan loved it. And I thought what J.J. Abrams did was made a completely new universe canon while leaving the old one untouched. By changing things by way of time traveling Romulans we now have a completely new version of the Star Trek canon to explore.
The old universe is still there - go by the DVDs and watch them again if you need to! That's what I was going to do, but you know what? I feel in love with Star Trek all over again and I love this version just as much as the original.
Reply
5-11-2009 @ 1:53AM
Phish said...
any show, movie, script, book that uses time-travel without extremely rigid rules, is LAME!
It makes everything that happens useless, because at any time, ppl can go back and change it all over again.
The fundamental laws of physics, philosophy, religion etc.. dictate that we cannot travel back in time, we can slow down relative-time to appear we are going back in time, but that is just an illusion and we are not really travelling back in time.
I doubt this universe exists without a purpose, which is exactly what it means when you can travel back and forth in time.
5-09-2009 @ 5:25PM
Jimmy said...
I was one of those Trekkie's who took you to task for applying lame, out-of-date mischaracterizations to fans of the Strek films and series. I stand by that.
Saw the movie, loved it, and knew I would. Am I thrilled with some of the changes? Not really, but as I said in my original post, anything that gets Trek back in the mainstream is a good thing to me.
As for you, Mr. Gallagher, your condescending rude attitude leaves a lot to to be desire. If you can't act professional perhaps you should do something else. Or, if I might paraphrase, "IT'S A @#*$ING BLOG!" Get over yourself.
Reply
5-09-2009 @ 6:16PM
Drew said...
I have to agree with Jimmy. I'll be honest - I've never liked Star Trek, despite repeated attempts to get into it, it's just never been my thing.
I haven't seen the new movie yet, but I am interested in checking it out, but as I have no horse in this particular race, I'm of the mindset that a little re-invigoration is a good thing, and maybe a reboot to modernize and attempt to restore relevancy won't hurt at all.
A serious retcon like this seems to be is bound to get some fans upset (although those fans may feel better if they look at it as an alternate universe to the Trek(s) they know and love), especially one as cherished as Star Trek. I don't think that means it's without merit, but, Mr. Gallagher, I think you should apply the concept to a series you have felt strongly about for many years, and think about how you would feel if someone new came along and said "all that stuff you watched and invested in? Yeah, that doesn't matter anymore." It doesn't mean you can't appreciate the value of the new product, but surely you can appreciate that that may frustrate some folks.
I'm also not saying that there aren't some fans who may be taking it a little too seriously, or too personally, or even considering themselves "better" than a reboot.
However, this post... it's just rude. It's rude, condescending, and blatantly disrespectful to fans of Star Trek, and it's entirely unprofessional. I think it's fair to say that fans of Star Trek are fans of television, too - way to go, sir, on alienating some of the people who are reading your words, and therefor seeing the website's advertisements and partners, and therefore putting money in your pocket.
Now, I'm sure people come here to read about news, opinions and reviews of things they're interested in, and not to be made to feel lesser than or mocked for their interests and passions. You'd do well to remember that.
5-09-2009 @ 11:53PM
Saavik said...
Danny, why can't you accept that some Star Trek fans will be unwilling to embrace this film without insulting them?
Personally, I can't agree with all the arguments that state that this new movie is such a good thing because it brought the series back to life. If all the good stories set in the original Star Trek universe had been told (a fact which I think is questionable, but I'll let it go), then it was time to let the series rest in peace. What already existed would live on on DVD and in memory and could still bring in new viewers, introduced to the series by people who already loved it or by its reputation. And JJ Abrams and company could invest their time creating something new of their own.
But that doesn't mean that I go around accusing all the folks (inculding you) who hail the new movie for bringing the series back of being unwilling to let the series go and telling them to get a life.
And just because I don't agree with the people who are happy the series was "brought back," doesn't mean I can't try to understand their point of view. Indeed, I do mostly understand it because I'm on that other side when it comes to Doctor Who. I discovered Doctor Who through the new series and have gone on to enjoy adventures of the earlier Doctors. So I appreciate that new chapters can bring in new viewers for the original material and give it new life. But I can also understand those fans of classic Who who won't accept, let alone embrace, "nuWho" because of the changes that have been made (love interests for the Doctor, mind melds, "CybusMen," etc.). (These changes, I might add, seem to me less significant than those made to Star Trek, though my position is naturally skewed in this matter.)
So, please, take Drew's advice and try to see things from the other side. And, failing that, at least have the decency and common sense not to be derogatory to your readers, who have every right to express their disagreement with your posts in the comments, even vehemently, so long as they don't resort to empty insults the way you have in this post. (And, incidentally, not one comment on the other thread by those who dislike/disapprove of/disavow the movie was anywhere near as insulting to you as you are towards them in this post. Indeed, most of those comments save their attacks for the movie itself, unlike a fair number - though certainly not all - of the comments by people defending the movie, who feel the need to call those who disagree with them geeks, nerds, etc.)
5-09-2009 @ 5:31PM
btarlinian said...
I havn't actually seen the movie yet, but couldn't you just as easily argue that the new timeline at the end of the movie is where the rest of the Trek universe is set, and that the start of the movie is in an alternate universe?
Reply
5-13-2009 @ 1:05AM
jason said...
I would like to think the same thing, however, with planet Vulcan being destroyed that pretty much removes that as a possibility. Several movies have taken place on Vulcan with scads of vulcans running around. That kind of repopulation just isn't possible... also, Spock's mother is dead. Star Trek 3 had her very much alive, and even a few appearances in STNG. Hate to say it, but this is very much an alternate universe.
5-09-2009 @ 5:34PM
fritz said...
they said it right during the movie, the fact that both spock and the romulans are there makes it an alternate reality. Same characters, different universe. I look forward to the opprotunity to see more of star trek in this different universe.
also at Jimmy...
he was just expressing an opion, cut him some slack, its his blog, he can write what he wants
Reply
5-09-2009 @ 6:35PM
Mike said...
It's his blog? He's been here 6 months. He works for the blog, it's not his blog.
Also, the purpose of this place is to get AND DISCUSS entertainment news, isn't it?
WAS THAT NOT THE EXPRESS REASON GIVEN FOR BOB'S OPEN THREADS THE LAST FEW WEEKS? TO DISCUSS MORE???
And yet, when I admittedly bring to the table a discussion that gets more traffic, responses, and thought than the rest of the week combined, I don't get a response in the thread...... no, I get a whole new thread created to just how much of a nerd I am.
Is that what the ACTUAL OWNERS of this blog want?
Any time there are comments one of the reviewers doesn't like they're supposed to end that and start a mocking thread about the person actually debating the merits of something?
I dunno... I guess since he couldn't actually say I was wrong about anything it's easy to just dismiss me as a head-gear wearing nerd.
If this point isn't for discussion, then what's it for?
And I don't come here to discuss something only to be called out by those that operate the site and made fun of. Do the rest of you?
5-10-2009 @ 11:40AM
Jimmy said...
Fritz, I don't disagree. He has the right to share his opinion, as do the people who disagree with him. Why write for blog if you're going to upset every time someone disagrees with you? Isn't that kind of the purpose for a blog? To get varied opinions?
Of course Mr. Gallagher's free to express his opinion. He can even insult particular groups of fans. However, he should expect some push back from people who disagree with him. As I said, isn't that the purpose of a blog?
5-09-2009 @ 5:43PM
Adrienne said...
I'm a lifelong Trekker, and I LOVED the new movie! Yes, I'm a little sad about seeing a certain beloved planet getting obliterated, but I think this is an awesome way to start a relaunch; with an alternate reality. Now what is old will be new again, and can happen in different ways. I think that is a whole point of science fiction is that there are these possibilities. We can always cherish and enjoy the original Star Trek universe, but with this, we could easily have another forty years of rather fresh entertainment.
Reply
5-11-2009 @ 6:43PM
Dan said...
I am more of a Star Wars fan than a Star Trek fan, but I've seen #2, #4, #5-#8 and a few episodes of TOS...and this was by far, the best of them all. It was just a fun movie and it even got my girlfriend (who fought and fought my suggestion that we go see "Star Trek"...she "hated" Star Trek) to find interest in the series and she even visited the website and suggested we name our next dog "Tiberius" after Captain Kirk's middle name.
The new Kirk, Spock and Scotty are all better than the originals (yes, I said it), and the new Uhura is HOT. The new Chekov is a little cheesy and I have trouble picturing Harold (John Cho) being anything but a stoner.
It's just a really good action film with Sci-Fi thrown in. I saw Wolverine and this one, and the difference in quality is staggering. Star Trek is vastly superior.
5-09-2009 @ 6:00PM
D said...
Star Trek NEEDED a new reality and a new start.It NEEDED a new canon.This is Star Trek for the 21st century and beyond not the past.
This is the story that takes the concept on for the next 43 plus years not the past.
As for internet opinion.if you allow type written words on a computer screen to actually hurt you.then you have problems far beyond someone's opinion.Nobody really needs to be offensive or insulting to Trek fans and stooping to that says something for the writer but hey it's the internet folks so forget it and go on with your real lives.
Star Trek has always been about open minds and inclusion,about infinite possibilities and yet the continuity of the universe.There's room enough for both viewpoints mostly because they aren;t that different.
Reply
5-09-2009 @ 6:18PM
Mike said...
All I said was that it sucks they weren't good enough writers to make a compelling and important story within the continuity we had.
Also, we know the universe at the end of Star Trek wasn't the one we previously had because we've seen how some of those events went down, and it wasn't like this.
With that said, this is also not a stable timeline. And if assholes want to slam me for being smarter than them and actually understanding how to construct a time travel story, so be it.
There are two types of time travel, open and closed systems. A closed system would be like what we have with Lost right now. What happened, happened, nothing changes. Within Star Trek an example of this would be Time's Arrow where the events in 19th century San Francisco were simply the fulfillment of the timeline, not an alteration to it. They found Data's head and eventually replace Data's head completing that cycle.
Star Trek more often uses an open system of time travel, however, wherein events in the past can be altered and thus alter the timeline.
The timeline from which we came has now been altered. Everything from the point of alteration forward has a chance to be different.
However, that future also had ramifications into its own past beyond the point of the Kelvin incident.
First Contact for example, now that Kirk and crew are on a completely different set of adventures who is to say that the future will even remotely resemble what they have now? It's unlikely that 100 years in the future things will be back to normal enough for Picard to take command of an Enterprise-D at Encounter at Farpoint. If he doesn't, he doesn't meet Q under the same Circumstances. Without that Q Who? likely doesn't happen as it did, we don't meet the Borg like we did. The Borg Queen doesn't develop an interest in Picard. We never get Locutus. Either that results in the assimilation of humanity by that first attack in Best of Both Worlds or they come back during their attack in First Contact. And because Picard was never assimilated, even if they are about a ship called Enterprise-E, he doesn't know where to shoot. They can't destroy the cube... but let's say they do. They still wouldn't likely be able to follow the Borg into the past to save Cochrane and enable First Contact... and while we don't know whether the events of First Contact were open or closed originally, now that Picard and company are different or don't exist it doesn't matter. When that point is reached the Borg will either go back in time, assimilate Earth in the future, or not be there and not go back at all....
And if that's the case, then FC is broken, broken before the Kelvin incident, thus causing another alternate universe to be created instantly whereing FC never happened, Borg were never on pre-warp Earth, etc.
Thus, just like we restarted with a new timeline at the point of the Kelvin incident, so will we be forced to start a new timeline at First Contact, but only after the point where that past isn't made manifest... aka we get to the point when Picard and crew should've gone back. They don't, causing a paradox within the timeline, forcing a revision... that revision is that the Borg encounter never happened. Now, if it was previously a closed system and Riker and Geordi were always there for the first warp flight, then their non-presence could actually be what alters the future (whereas in the movie FC they thought their precence might be the altering factor, but clearly it wasn't).
So, you can all blissfully stick your heads in the ground toward shitty scriptwork that, in a fictional universe like this, creates more issues than it solves.
You folks seem to think this move on their part opened Trek... not really. They've done a great job of fitting inside the canon and continuity. They didn't want to have that fight, so they just destroyed it thinking they were brilliant and would be free..... would that that were true.
Then again, stupid people will accept that as readily as seeing a planet implode in the sky from an adjacent solar system. Go figure...
BUT I FORGOT, I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE THOUGHTS.
Reply
5-09-2009 @ 6:44PM
Jen said...
And I'm sick and tired of hearing fans being called stupid for not "getting" it. So freaking what if the scripting is weak. It's still a fun movie. Not everyone has to love what you love or hate what you hate. Get over it and stop calling people stupid for not getting YOUR point of view.
5-09-2009 @ 8:35PM
pumpkinhead said...
I don't think it was the differing opinions our blogger here was referring to. I think it was the level of anger behind them. And maybe in some cases, the arrogance... not calling out anyone in particular here, so please don't get your action figures in an uproar.
5-10-2009 @ 1:29AM
Ty Glitchblade said...
...God you need to get laid...
5-10-2009 @ 3:21PM
Angel said...
Mike, for someone that is a Star Trek fan who spent all that time and space trying to make a logical argument you forgot the 'logic' part. Spock would be so disappoinnted in you. 90% of your argument is based on assumptions of your own making - all of which are completely self-serving. You've invented your own details, then used those invented details to prove that you are right. Sorry. It doesn't work like that. There are tons of reasons why it can all still exist, you just refuse to see them because you've got tunnel vision. You can't enjoy the movie for what it is because you think you know better. So kind of like your argument you've ended up ruining your own experience by having an opinion travel back through time and judge the experience poorly based on events that never really happened except in your own alternate universe - leading to a poor opinion of a movie that you mistakenly believe couldn't even exist. Sorry. Try again. This time just be honest and say you don't like that you've painstakingly memorized every detail of the Star Trek universe and you're utterly distraught because you think that all of that is useless now - as though it had some use before.
5-12-2009 @ 2:32AM
screaminghello said...
wow... just wow
5-09-2009 @ 6:34PM
Scott K said...
That guy got really mad. Hipsters do suck though.
Reply