http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=60995
I think this is a better comparison pic, though...
http://pics.livejournal.com/dougals/pic/0002rhwy
I think it could work. Plus, BatManuel!
Discuss... ;)
Printable View
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=60995
I think this is a better comparison pic, though...
http://pics.livejournal.com/dougals/pic/0002rhwy
I think it could work. Plus, BatManuel!
Discuss... ;)
Hmm, for a franchise that is fresh, new and invigorating there sure doesn't seem to be much...originality.
It takes more than different actors playing the same character to be bold and new. Even for those of you who enjoyed the reboot, at what point does the Abramsverse become a complete joke? For some reason an old Def Leppard song comes to mind.
Its better to burn out, than fade away...
But how would that come about, there is no original meeting during a five year exploration mission in order to create a wound that was allowed to fester and grow in order to create a character that was central to an awe inspiring movie.
I just watched Star Trek last night again and am still loving it. It makes sence to go back and do Khan again, especially if you are eyeing starting a new TV series soon, after the sucessess of Lost, V, and the others Parmount has got to be considering that. The movie was all about reusing whats there (I caught a reference to a Admiral Archer pet beagle . . . I wonder ;)) I guess the the old guard will be split on this.
That's easy to fix: make it a time travel movie! Cuz everybody loves it when ST does time travel in the movies, and they haven't done it nearly often enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by JALU3
So what Khan, knowing he's doomed in the his past, instead in an alternative turn of events takes the Reliant, does the slingshot manuever around a star, and ends up in the new alternative reality, to take the Reliant to kick the new movie enterprise's butt around the screen, leading to his yet again eventual demise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge
Sure, why not? That makes at least as much sense as the last movie's plot.
I guess you're right. And since it's the alternate future, those events wont impact the present timeline, and mysteriously in some weird twist of fate, during the sling shot maneuver an exact duplicate of the Reliant, including Chekov and the rest, failed the maneuver leaving a copy to continue with the original timeline to do battle with the original enterprise to the demise that we saw for them at the end of Star Trek II. And of course Terrell and Chekov have no recollection of the attempted maneuver due to the duplicating process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge
Wow. The venom as regards the new movie is, to me, surprising... Didn't seem that bad when the movie came out. Or maybe I missed it...
I could see the movie being the new version of "Space Seed," but I wonder if I'm the only one...
Don't get me wrong, Doug, the movie was enough fun that I saw it twice. But if you think the plot through, well, it just doesn't hold together. I'm still hoping that the next movie will be "real Star Trek", but it's more forlorn hope than honest expectation.
DB, I wouldn't call it venom. I'd call it disappointment. Don't get me wrong, it was a fun movie, and it was good for what it is. But if you were to look at it within the overall scope that is trek, from the lowest lows of slash fiction (shutters at the thought) to the highest highs of the likes of All Good Things and Pale Moonlight, the movie itself wouldn't make the top 25 episodes/movies of Star Trek. Furthermore, although it had the exterior of trek. After reflecting back on it, I feel that I was more into the fact that there was new trek content out there, rather then it itself being top notch quality trek that we all enjoy (and lets face it we've had a lot of bad trek over the years) (not that this is bad, it just wasn't top notch).
Furthermore, they have a new timeline to explore. I can understand that they can go back to the well and take more classic bits and attempt to recycle them in the new Trek glossy movie explosion young hip feel, but I don't think that's necessary. It should, and I believe can, stand on its own, with new content that explores the characters (since there are significant differences between the original trek characters and the new Trek characters who happen to share the name with the originals), their motivations, their goals, and their explorations and efforts to defend the federation in their story line.
If they were really to go back to the well, what they should be doing is showing us how the introduction of original Spock with late 24th century tech has on their timeline, and how it effects their decisions on how they go out to explore the galaxy and expand the federation. Theoretically they will know of the Dominion, the Borg, the Cardassians, and multiple other threas. They will know of the multitude of species unknown to them, stars and systems unexplored by them, and all the possibilities that has to the Federation and Starfleet. There is so much that can be made of this thread of story, that if they follow it it'll impact everything else they do in that timeline.
Doing Khan again, what for? I have to admit that I myself am not much of a fan of either ST II or Khan, but still is was one of the most successful movies. Why do it again? Is there not creativity left to actually do something new? Half of the last movie was stolen anyway, either of BSG or Star Wars (admitted by Abrahams) and the whole idea was to reboot the franchise, to do something new, which was said to be impossible with another TNG movie. Redoing Khan is not new though and Orci and Kurtzman, the "scriptwriters" (have yet to see a script of the two, which is good or at least not a complete net of plotholes), are simply not up to the task to write a compelling story that can match one of the classics.
If I want to see Khan I watch ST II, no need to make an another movie with him again, imho.
No Khan in the new film please. We really need something else for the Mix...and Please no TNG races like th Borg, Ferengi or other nonsense.
We truely need something whichwill Invigorate the series.
Trite crud about transhuman engineering is not one of them
Yeah I have to say I really hate the idea of a new Khan. Has to be said, we also have Spock Prime who has 250 odd years of such experience and may well tell them some of that stuff.... to avoid! :)
I really want to see all new material. Sure, have established races in the films (just hopefully they won't blow up a home-world per film haha) But I think the last thing they want to do is rehash everything all over again.. it's one of the worst parts of Trek!
The key element here is of course 24th Century Spock. Who knows all about what happened and might not have enjoyed his lingering painful death at the end of Wrath of Khan.
Imagine the new scene. The Enterprise comes across the SS Botany Bay, and having been warned of the danger of Khan Spock might actually 'slip' and accidentally launch a volley of torpedoes when ordered to scan the ship.
"Sorry captain. That wont happen again..."
...Well, at least until he has to check to see if Valeris managed to escape Vulcan anyway and move on to the next item on his check-list...
My vote is to simply keep Abrams away from anything Trek. After the abortion that was the latest movie, the last thing I want to see is him cast Trek further into populist, BSG-loving ruin by messing with the "Khan timeline".
I keep doubting Abrams would keep Khan in the next Trek movie if he were to direct it.
Apart from the Vulcans (who were wiped out anyway), the last movie had very few canon races in it (there's the green Orion girl, though I don't remember if she is actually referred as Orion, a mention to a cocktail named from the Cardassian, and I think that's almost all). Nero did not behave quite like the Romulans we know and for all intents and purposes could have been from any other race as far as his behaviour was concerned.
So I expect the next movie to feature completely new aliens and storylines, with little to no relation to the established Trek canon (and paradoxically, I might enjoy it much more than the last movie, since I won't be expecting to see a Trek movie but rather another space-opera with some references to Star Trek here and there).
I don't quite see what Khan could bring to the next movie. Remaking Space Seed or The Wrath of Khan would be a bit pointless IMHO (especially given the efforts taken in the first movie to distance itself from the original universe - no matter what one may think of the result), and it would be sad to see Khan being used in a completely different storyline as a completely different character, just to cash on the renown of the original series character.
On an unrelated note, I'm a bit sad to see in the article at the origin of this thread that the next movie is referred to as "Star Trek 2". While technically no previous Trek movie was actually called just "Star Trek", I can't help feeling like those 10 previous movies are being casually discarded as belonging to another era.
Sadly that seems to be Abrams way of thinking.after watching the extras on the new ST dvd set I feel really sad for the man.The extras basicly extoled the virtues of how great JJ Abrams is.Very sadQuote:
Originally Posted by C5
There's another reason for me to have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Abrams brings to Star Trek roughly what Keanu Reeves brought to The Day the Earth Stood Still.Quote:
On an unrelated note, I'm a bit sad to see in the article at the origin of this thread that the next movie is referred to as "Star Trek 2". While technically no previous Trek movie was actually called just "Star Trek", I can't help feeling like those 10 previous movies are being casually discarded as belonging to another era.
I know what Star Trek is - I have every minute of every bit of live-action ST on DVD, and I'll keep watching them for the rest of my life. Abrams and his cohorts won't be getting a cent of my money for their cheap plastic copies.
They did that when they sold all the props, and sent all the old set pieces to the wreckers or burned them. Paramount made an active effort to get rid of everything but the legel license to the property, and although many fans who could afford it got a bit of their own piece of fandom, it ruined any possibility of continuing that future.Quote:
Originally Posted by C5
No, selling the props isn't any obstacle to the future. They could make all new props and sets if they wanted to. One reason why all the ships got sold off was because they could do it all with CG.Quote:
Originally Posted by JALU3
The only thing that is ruining the possibility of continuing on with "that future" is the decision by those in power not to do so.
What the people at Paramount don't seem to "get" is that the reason why the Trek franchise was in a decline was because the last few series and films weren't very good.
Unfortunately, the Abrams film did well at the box office and with the general public.
About the only chance I see of a return to the former continuity would be if the next film or two tanks badly.
And with the current movie-watching audience, I can't see that happening. You could make Transformers 3: Dinosaurs Punching An Aircraft Carrier and people would trudge down to the cinema to see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
I don't really understand people who still go see new films in multiplex theatres...
Now that made me laugh out loud! :)Quote:
You could make Transformers 3: Dinosaurs Punching An Aircraft Carrier and people would trudge down to the cinema to see it.
We were giggling in the video store last weekend about a movie on DVD being advertised: Megashark vs. Giant Octopus. I kid you not. :eek:
Actually I have seen that.. I thought the trailer was so hilarious it would wrap round from bad into good.. sadly it only succeeded in wrapping from bad into incredibly rubbish :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa7ck5mcd1o hehehe
and yeah Transformers has been a real let down.
I'll let you get back to your Abrams Trek bash now :p
The only thing NuTrek has in common with BSG is shaky cameras and filming in breweries...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldaron
*thwack* *thwack* *thwack* :)Quote:
I'll let you get back to your Abrams Trek bash now
OK, the ships I can see, but did they take measurements of the sets? Design specs of the props? Patterns for the costumes?Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
Remember when they had to remake the original TOS bridge for Relic, they had to do a lot of guess work. Sure props, sets, and costumes can be replaced, however, to get it right all the hard background work needs to be preserved.
They don't need to take measurements, aAll those things are built from plans, and drawings that still exist somwhere. A lot of it has been printed in various magazines over the years, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by JALU3
Additionally, there is nothing to prevent them from "revamping" some of the designs-especially if they set a series a few years before or after a preexisting series. Just take a look at how often the movie era Enterprise changed-getting "redecorated" with each film. They could have made it look exactly the same for each film. They choose not to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JALU3
That was caused in part because they were using bridge footage from TOS rather than rebuilding a entire bridge set. It wasn't that they couldn't build the set, but that they wanted to find a less expensive way to accomplish the same thing, and have it match perfectly with the preexisting footage from "Mark of Gideon".
TOS would probably the hardest style to recreate, as some of the original props were sold off to fans after the series was canceled (in 1970 it was considered to be a dead series). But just take a look at the high quality toy replicas that are available for TOS. There are some that actually look better than the original props. It would certainly be possibly for a studio to make convincing copies of all the sets, costumes and props.
So there really isn't any technical difficulty that would prevent them from rebuilding old sets and reestablishing the original continuity. The reason why they won't is that the franchise wasn't doing so well, but the Abrams film did very well at the box office.
If you want my opinion as to why the franchise stopped doing well, I'd say it was because they wrote off the fans.
Won't argue that part with you, because it feels so true.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
They always want new fans, but seem to treasure what fans they already have.
They used to treasure the fans the already had. About the time of Roddenberry's death that changed. During interviews and special events cast and crew would start to stress the point that only a small part of their viewing audience was made up by the fans. Maybe the didn't realize that one fan might be responsible for a whole family watching the show.Quote:
Originally Posted by JALU3
It got worse from there. The "let's rewrite the continuity" idea didn't start with the Abrams film. When the producers give the impression that they don't care much for the series history and continuity, it makes fans wonder why should they.
The really odd thing is that the original series writers and staff figured this out long ago.
I am sorry. But are you about to tell us how TOS never made a continuity mistake and rewrote itself back in its original run?Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
Are you sure?
Continuity mistake implies continuity : PQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Gurden
Ah but that's not the same, Dan. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Gurden
Continuity mistakes in TOS are creativity not letting itself be impaired by fanboyish sticking to details.
Continuity mistakes in TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT are the ultimate proof that their writers are utterly devoid of dedication to their loyal fanbase and any talent whatsoever.
Continuity mistakes in ST XI are not continuity mistakes, since it's a parallel universe anyway (no matter if the continuity mistake happens before the diverging from the original universe).
:p
To be fair to Trek XI it has better continuity than many of Enterprise's episodes. It has timeline shifts, which explain many of the differences, but in terms of the back story it respects what's been before.
Enterprise was a continuity minefield, to even the most casual Trek fan. By then they'd stopped even trying to make an effort!
What I find funny about Trek XI continuity errors, is to see how people who liked the movie go to great lengths to find an explanation for them (which usually come down to "it's a parallel universe anyway, so it's normal if everything is different"), while at the same time as detractors of the other series they show an iron inflexibility toward continuity errors in them.
For instance, the size of the nu-Enterprise which is explained at length by the fact that scanning Nero's ship jumpstarted Fed tech, while the likeness of the NX-01 to the Akira was seen as an unforgivable error from the show's designers (or, actually, Bermann and Braga, who seem to be considered responsible for everything that went wrong in Trek, starting with Spock's Brain).
Anyway... I'll have to watch ST XI again sometime in the future, while doing my best to forget everything about an interview of Abrams I had read before watching it the first time, where he explained that Star Trek was boring to him because there always were lots of talking and stuff, and that he wanted to inject some action and fun in it (this interview has also given me dreams of inflicting to Abrams what many fans wanted to inflict on Wesley Crusher).
So, trying now to make this post at least partially relevant to the topic... if for some reason the writers of Trek XII decided to stick a little to continuity, I'd love anyway to see some element of the crew's past we've heard about, but never seen onscreen, instead of a remake or re-imaging of a past episode.
Like for instance Pike's accident (hey he probably was the character I liked best in this movie, so I don't mind seeing him again), Kirk's encounter of Carol Marcus, or whatever obscure event about the characters' past I forgot about and that would be mentioned in some TOS episode.
But so far my hopes for that are very very low... (and the fact that I didn't quite like how the Kobayashi Maru scene was handled in ST XI does not help much).
No, I'm not saying that. What I was trying to say was:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Gurden
1) The people behind Trek have been ignoring/rewriting the continuity for the past few years (Star Trek: Enterprise).
2) The original producers and writers considered continuity and the fans to be important to the success of the franchise. In recent years the fans have been marginalized, and continuity/setting history has been ignored or rewritten pretty much on a whim.
[QUOTE=Tobian;175051]To be fair to Trek XI it has better continuity than many of Enterprise's episodes. It has timeline shifts, which explain many of the differences, but in terms of the back story it respects what's been before. [/qipte]
Yeas, it has better continuity than Enterprise, that's not saying much.
No it doesn't respect what's been before. Somehow Kirk, Spock and McCoy all end up at Starfleet Academy at the same time, despite differences in age and back story that indicates otherwise. The previous history under Chris Pike isn't just rewritten, but somehow the timeline is condensed.
Scotty is now the inventor of "transwarp" drive, and the effect is so revolutionary as to completely rework the way space travel works as from then on.
The continuity of the Spock-Uhura romance?
Or how about Sulu using a Katana, rather than a foil/rapier/epee. Sulu practiced fencing not kenjutsu.
Which is my point. It's not that continuity causes lots of problems. It is that in recent years they have gone out of their way to destroy continuity.Quote:
Enterprise was a continuity minefield, to even the most casual Trek fan. By then they'd stopped even trying to make an effort!
For instance, in the series pilot where they have the Klingon homeworld close to Earth. Since the Klingons were not vital to that story (it was really just an excuse to get the ship out in space-any alien would have sufficed), and only played a minor part to the series, there was really no need to have done that.
What it loked like was that they wrote stores and then tried to "trek" the stories by sprinkling in whatever Trek stuff they could recall of the top of their heads. Whatever sounded neat. The T'Pau/T'Pol thing comes to mind.
In a nutshell, they were writing episodes the way bad Gs write scenarios.
I think the reason why the film deliberately erased the previous continuity was ti try and avoid the backlash the Enterprise caused.
Nut, since they changed everything, what the point of a retread anyway? The ship, setting, and characters are all different.
Now THAT is a band-wagon I can jump aboard.Quote:
Originally Posted by C5
Me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Gurden
I didn't care for the fact that Kirk gets the Enterprise upon graduation, either. It gives me the feeling that:
1) The commendation for the Kobayashi MAru even had nothing to do with the test, but was simply an acknowledgement for saving everyone's butt.
2) Starfleet is comprised of idiots. Is there no one in the Federation more capable of commanding a Starship than an Academy graduate? It's like turning the Nimitz over to someone who just got out of Annapolis.
It's worse than that; Kirk was a 3rd year cadet, not even a graduate. If I had worked 20 years to get to the rank of captain and then a 3rd year cadet was promoted to the same rank, I'd give some serious thought to resigning my commission in protest.