Adam@Home by Rob Harrell for March 24, 2013

Star Wars XII: Makin’ Wookiee.

Careful, Adam! That’s getting dangerously close to child abuse.

@TooOldToBeCool: Excellent!

Fortunately, we have an Internet. IMDB says the 2009 Star Trek cost $140,000,000 to make and grossed $385,000,000 worldwide. If that’s bombing, I wanna bomb like that. Rottentomatoes.com says it got a 95% positive rating from critics.

Besides, even if you don’t believe the numbers: If JJ Trek really was a washout, would they have let him make a sequel?

Gosh, nowadays we not only have “Star Trek vs Star Wars” arguments and “New Star Trek vs Old Star Trek” arguments, we can also argue about “New Star Wars vs Old Star Wars,” New Old Star Trek vs Old New Star Trek," “New Old Star Trek vs Old Old Star Trek”, and once “Episode VII” comes out we’ll no doubt get arguments about “New Old Star Trek vs New New Star Wars.”

We live in amazing and wonderful times.

Apparently Adam monitors what his kids look at on the Internet with the household Intranet. Good job.

“The true Star Trek fans found JJ Abrams film offensive that he would take the entire Trek world an turn it on end.”

Isn’t the name for that sort of argument the “‘True Spartan’ Fallacy” or something?"

“No Spartan would do such-and-such.”“I’m a Spartan, and I’ve done sthat.”“Then you’re not a true Spartan.”

Look, the original-cast Star Trek shows and films are still out there (as are the Next Generation shows, if that’s your taste). They weren’t going to make any more of them, J.J. Abrams or no J.J. Abrams. The first Abrams Trek movie made a lot of money and built a new fan base which, face it, is going to outlive the old fan base (not to mention being freer with their disposable income).

You know what? I bet a lot of the new Trek fans have been (and will continue to be) inspired to seek out and explore the original series, to boldly go where many have gone before, when they might otherwise have had no inclination to do so. And I’m sure Paramount and the Roddenberry estate have absolutely no problem with that, whether their (the new fans’) comparison of the two leads them to believe the old show was cheesy and preachy (which it sometimes was), or that it had a sincerity of purpose and message which the Abrams series (so far) lacks.

Who knows? Maybe in 30 years somebody will do a “Star Trek: The Next Generation” reboot, and in this timeline (which extends from the Abrams timeline), Captain Picard has hair!" (he’ll be played by 50 year-old Justin Bieber).

All this talk on Trek finally made me break down and get an account.

That said, first let me attest that I am a die-hard Trekkie. Roddenbury and the crew for the original series were a flippin’ sci-fi geniuses in my book. I won’t deny that.

But JJ Abrams’s entries into the franchise are great too.

As already stated, according to the numbers, the reboot was massively successful, to the point that not only did it draw in a new audience of fans, it clearly appealed to the old as well. I can attest to being one of those “old” fans, and I can name dozens of people I personally know who are the same and thoroughly enjoyed the Trek reboot. By claiming it was a failure only says you’re trying to deny the truth. A movie you personally didn’t like succeeded, and you just can’t handle that. Fine. To each their own. But please don’t try and make a mockery of yourself making public claims that just aren’t true. Just say you didn’t like and be done with it.

But either way the Abrams-style extensive reboot of Trek was inevitable. “Old” Trek, if we really must call it that, was aging, to the point it could no longer support itself and was falling apart. The tech featured was dated, as was the sci-fi. The storyplots weak and flimsy, and were betraying Roddenbury’s view already by no longer pioneering the future. Instead, it got itself stuck in a rut and was refusing to get it out. it didn’t want to look to the future. It wanted to stick with the present, where it already knew everything, or thereabouts.

Thus I say Abrams is the best thing to ever happen to Trek, because he had to gall to go back to the beginning and breathe new life into it. And he did just that. Trek finally felt like it was pioneering an exciting and ideal future that actually FEELS like the future again, which was exactly was Roddenbury’s goal when he set out to make Star Trek (besides make money).

Yes, Abrams view is different from the past, but that was to be expected. With Roddenbury gone now, it was going to happen no matter what eventually. Personally, there are far worse people they could’ve turned the reigns over to. At least be glad it wasn’t worse. At least Abrams knows what the vision of Trek is, and though you may not see it, he’s working at continuing that vision. “Into Darkness” is looking like it’ll definitely succeed at that better than the last film.

And anyway, having spoken to a variety of Trek fans on the matter and having met the Abrams haters in the past, I’ve noticed that most of those haters, despite claiming otherwise, hated the movie mostly because it changed things. They wanted a replica of the original series right down the number of stitches in Kirk’s shirt, an expectation that could never have been fulfilled, even if Roddenbury himself worked on the reboot. The original series style of Trek ended when TOS ended, and it’s never going to come back, not exactly. Trek has been moving continually onwards ever since 1969, and is still doing it today, as it should. If you can’t move on with it, you’re going to be left behind, simple as that.

And if you just can’t move on no matter what, then fine. Buy yourself some TOS DVDs to fuel your nostalgia, go find yourself a new franchise to follow, and at least let the rest us of move on with out you in peace, because the rest of us are waiting up for you.

…

As for Star Wars, I’m indifferent. I think Abrams has a chance to turn things around with the new trilogy, but we’ll see. Personally, I think Star Wars was greatly missing out on it’s own full potential from the beginning, but that’s just me.

Oh, and I promise not to make a habit of long posts like this now that I’m a member (because I might as well continue commenting, right?). It’s just…Trek’s special to me, and I support what Abram’s done with it. I couldn’t stand by and let people unfairly and bias-ly tear it down without at least saying SOMETHING.

Yeah. I must have missed the election when you were elected spokesperson for all “true Star Trek fans.” You’re speaking for yourself and maybe some like minded friends.

If you look at box office or any third party measurement, it was a UNQUALIFIED SUCCESS.

What struck my wife and me about the Star Trek reboot was that it was itself a Kobayashi Maru scenario. If you are in an unwinnable situation, reprogram the situation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru