Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 151

Thread: More Trek Movie News (From Scifi.com)

  1. #46
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    445
    I'm going to have to risk the grapes/tomatoes/rotten eggs of wrath here and state that Robin's got my vote as UberBabe of Trek - and that includes all iterations up to and including (God save us) ENT. I've got a massive weakness for brunettes - especially ones with those gorgeous high cheekbones and jawlines that could set churchbells ringing. Other than Robin, Michelle Forbes (rrrowwlll) is fighting for the top spot; although there were a host of others that got the thumbs up.

    I do agree that the portrayal of Saavik - appearances of the actresses aside - did vary markedly between II and III. Kirstie seemed to play off the emotional end of it (like those tears at the "...most human," line weren't a dead giveaway), where Robin was more to-the-point Vulcan...although I do recall Vonda McIntyre's novellization had her having a meltdown and attacking the Klingons after David was murdered. Seemed in character for me, though, and I could easily imagine Robin pulling it off, had it been included on screen.

    Is the slant of this thread changing a bit, or is it just me?

  2. #47
    Ezri was hottest.

    Anyway... HOW MUCH do you think the new Trek will suck?
    Portfolio | Blog Currently Running: Call of Cthulhu, Star Trek GUMSHOE Currently Playing: DramaSystem, Swords & Wizardry

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Salinas, Calif., USA (a Chiefs fan in an unholy land)
    Posts
    3,379
    Quote Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
    Anyway... HOW MUCH do you think the new Trek will suck?
    Well, that wasn't a loaded question...
    Davy Jones

    "Frightened? My dear, you are looking at a man who has laughed in the face of death, sneered at doom, and chuckled at catastrophe! I was petrified."
    -- The Wizard of Oz

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    11S MS 9888 1055
    Posts
    3,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Sea Tyger
    Well, that wasn't a loaded question...
    Yah, not even giving it a chance . . . I mean I am not to thrilled with Enterprise (you know, that series that they tacked on Star Trek infront of its name when its ratings were starting to slide) . . . but I gave it 5 episodes . . . and I continue to watch it in re-runs . . . but I still gave and continue to give it a chance.

    DeviantArt Slacker MAL Support US Servicemembers
    "The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night... You're also the reason Section Thirty-one exists -- someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong." Sloan, Section Thirty-One

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Bremen, Germany
    Posts
    1,924

    And I feared they would ruin it....

    http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33832


    If the above article holds at least some truth I am probably no longer interested in this "stuff" they decided to put the "Star Trek" on. First of all the idea sounds a lot like "First Contact meets Terminator", just exchange the Borg with Romulans. Additionally its a pretty lame excuse for "doing a new timeline". I would have preferred the "Galactica" way, meaning simply say that it is reimagined, but not a remake.
    When they first mentioned that Nimoy would return in this movie, I feared it would be some time-travel thing, but hope it might be as innocent as just introducing the new movie-series with an old characters - just like it had been "traditional" for the past TV-series, with the exception of Enterprise.
    Additionally Kirk was not that important for the relations of the Romulans and the Federation, there were far more profound incidents, like the Battle of Cheron, which decided the fate of these two.

    Well, maybe its really only a rumor and will turn out to be a hoax, which I really hope. What speaks for this beaing a hoax is that Abrahms always said he wants to make a Trek for everyone and not just the fans ( great! because that made ST X fail... ). Giving Spock a major part in this based on the TNG-episode "Reunification" would rather contradict that intention as would the inclusion of time travel - after all, this time travel stuff is the reason for many parodies and critics of Trek. I would not necessarily built the foundation of a new Trek on such a basis...
    We'll see, but my scepticism continously grows.
    We came in peace, for all mankind - Apollo 11

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Canonsburg, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,548
    I think the referenced post is PURE speculation on the writer's part, which makes it not even a rumor, but an attempt to START a rumor.

    (What else pure it might be, I'll leave to others with more scatological mindsets than myself)

    Credence level: Zero.
    "It's hard being an evil genius when everybody else is so stupid" -- Quantum Crook

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    3,462
    If that's true it'll sh*t on continuity more than Enterprise series 1, and that's a heck of a feat! I am sure a real fan who's seen the series wouldn't plan anything that awful.. well I hope anyway!
    Ta Muchly

  8. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Evan van Eyk
    Additionally Kirk was not that important for the relations of the Romulans and the Federation, there were far more profound incidents, like the Battle of Cheron, which decided the fate of these two.
    Well, there was 'Balance of Terror' and that Tau Ceti thing...

    Anyway, the format of the post–jumping immediately to suppositions about why old and young spock are in the same movie–sounds like he pulled it out of his ass.
    Last edited by The Tatterdemalion King; 09-01-2007 at 01:15 PM.
    Portfolio | Blog Currently Running: Call of Cthulhu, Star Trek GUMSHOE Currently Playing: DramaSystem, Swords & Wizardry

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Hoboken, NJ
    Posts
    890
    Is Saldana Trek's Uhura?
    TrekMovie.com reported a Star Trek casting rumor that 29-year-old actress Zoë Saldana has been offered the part of Uhura, the Enterprise communications officer originally played by Nichelle Nichols.
    http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index...ory=0&id=43813

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Worcester, MA USA
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Evan van Eyk
    http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33832


    Additionally Kirk was not that important for the relations of the Romulans and the Federation, there were far more profound incidents, like the Battle of Cheron, which decided the fate of these two.

    Let's see.

    1) Was able to counter the new Romulan Plasma Superweapon

    2) Was able to counter an cloaked ship.

    3) Destroyed the Romulan Protype ship with the afore mentioned devices, thrwarting Romulan plans for a new war against the Earth/Federation.

    4) Stole a cloaking device.

    5) Kidnapped a Subcommander.

    6) Prevented a plot that would have ensured war between the Federation and the Klingon Empire.


    I'd say he was a lot more important than the Battle of Cheron. If I was a Romulan and was going to try an change hsitroy, he'd be high on my list of targets.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    3,462
    Erm, but I think the point Evan Van Eyk was making is that this is a Prequel... Just like TNG later, untill they ran into the Romulans *IN* TOS, humanity had not seen anything of them since the humiliating defeat of the battle of Cheron. So why would Kirk have dealings with them in a TOS prequel... unless I missed where the timeline for this film lies?!
    Ta Muchly

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Bremen, Germany
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by tonyg
    Let's see.
    I'd say he was a lot more important than the Battle of Cheron. If I was a Romulan and was going to try an change hsitroy, he'd be high on my list of targets.
    Erm, no? If the Battle of Cheron had been lost by Earth and subsequently the war, since it was an all-in endeavour, there would have been no UFP at all and thus the Romulan's most major adversary would never have come into existence. Nothing Kirk has done, compares to the Battle of Cheron, it was the most important event ever concerning the relations of these two nations. That's why I thought it would make more sense to turn the result of this battle and not just kill Kirk. Kirk won't be a problem if there is no UFP...
    We came in peace, for all mankind - Apollo 11

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Worcester, MA USA
    Posts
    1,820
    Uh, no.

    If the outcome of the Battle of Cheron was changed, then the Earth-Romulan war would have continued. Nothing in Trek Canon states that Earth would have lost the war had they lost this battle, just that it was a decisive victory for Earth and a humilating defeat for the Romulans, that lead to peace negotiations.

    Other than that we just don't have enough information about the war to know what would have happend in the Roms had won.

    For example, the Battle of Midway is often considered the decisive battle in WWII that was the turning point in the war in the Pacifiic, yet had the Japanese won at Midway, it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war, merely extended the duration.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Bremen, Germany
    Posts
    1,924
    The battle of Cheron was a last effort of Earth. The major part of the fleet was present - if their plan had failed resulting in the loss of the fleet, Earth would have been pretty defenceless. Well that's what I read anyway, think it was in the POF-Sourcebook, but I am not sure... Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me.
    We came in peace, for all mankind - Apollo 11

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    11S MS 9888 1055
    Posts
    3,221
    Quote Originally Posted by tonyg
    For example, the Battle of Midway is often considered the decisive battle in WWII that was the turning point in the war in the Pacifiic, yet had the Japanese won at Midway, it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war, merely extended the duration.
    Many have argued that the loss of Midway would have lead to the eventual loss of Pearl . . . which would have made the Central Pacific a Japanese playground . .. and with the inability to supply Australia and New Zealand, those Commonwealth Nations would have a difficult time mantaining their defenses. Some argue that a Northern Front would have been developed . . . however, with out the threat of further intervention from the South, and if done currectly Japan could have continued to enlarge their Aluetian holdings . . . However, I couldn't see Japan making it past Whitehorse.

    DeviantArt Slacker MAL Support US Servicemembers
    "The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night... You're also the reason Section Thirty-one exists -- someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong." Sloan, Section Thirty-One

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •